She Put the Dom in He - Volume Two: To Her - Episode 1

She Put the Dom in He - With Translator’s Notes — the female companion perspective

Original Version:

Translator's Notes:

a Podcast by Intend to Relate

Listen on

Original Version — approximately 20:33: Spotify · Apple · Youtube

Translator's Notes Version — approximately 11:50: Spotify · Apple · Youtube

“I want a dominant man.”

What does that mean to you? A provider? Someone who makes decisions? Someone whose competence lets you relax? A particular sexual dynamic? Several of those things, in a combination you have not yet described?

The opening episode of To Her begins with a story about recognition and invitation, then turns toward a practical task: getting a clearer description of what you want and what you are asking another person to undertake.

Z’jip introduces the conversation with a disclosure about his own perspective. He is a man speaking to women, bringing experience, propositions, and tools for consideration. The listener retains her judgment—including the ability to find something useful to disagree with.

She put the dom in he

The title grows from Z’jip’s account of women recognizing, naming, and requesting a form of dominance before he had the vocabulary to describe it himself. Their invitations became part of his learning about responsibility, leadership, restraint, care, and negotiated authority.

The story leads to a relational proposition: a person’s dominant characteristics do not, by themselves, establish authority over another sovereign adult. In the consensual relationship being considered, the person yielding authority must consent to its exercise. Its scope needs to be understood together, and consent remains revocable.

Recognizing a quality in someone is an observation. Requesting or accepting an exercise of authority is another step. The distinction gives us a reason to ask what is actually being offered and chosen.

A clearer description of power

Provision, competence, masculinity, leadership, and sexual topping can overlap in a person’s experience. Each still gives us different information. The episode proposes the Three-Axis Power Description as a starting tool for separating those questions.

These are starting questions rather than permanent identities or an exhaustive map. Position and authority remain distinguishable within the sexual axis itself.

You may want a provider while retaining substantial household authority. You may lead at work and want someone else to take responsibility in another part of life. A more specific account lets another person understand the combination.

“That is not morally a better desire. It is a higher resolution request.”

The practical question follows: does the person in front of you know this is what you are asking for?

Personality Assessment Play and Exchange

How do you learn those things together? The episode proposes an intentional, mutual use of questions, stories, games, tests, frameworks, and observations. Each person offers themselves for consideration while learning how the other experiences themselves.

What does leadership mean to you? What happens when you get overwhelmed? What does being provided for mean to you? What would you like someone else to take off your plate?

These questions can invite curiosity and play. A questionnaire or classification gives you something to discuss; the person’s account and subsequent conduct remain part of what you need to encounter.

“The instrument is not the person.”

The default rule of assessment

The episode gives this inquiry a deliberately blunt formulation:

• Who the fuck are you?
• What the fuck do you want?
• What’s in it for me?

It is an internal assessment tool. What relationship are you being invited into? What are you being asked to give, risk, or exchange? What value does the possibility have for you?

As an actual relationship begins to look possible, ethical instrumentalism adds the reciprocal question: What’s in it for you? Each person’s offering and purpose belong in the inquiry. An arrangement needs enough clarity for both participants to consider whether those things fit.

When reality changes, can we talk?

The opening arrangement will eventually encounter changing circumstances. A provider may lose income. Someone accustomed to leading may become overwhelmed. A partner who usually carries the household may need care themselves.

The episode therefore asks another question early: can this relationship talk about itself? Can either person acknowledge a changed capacity, ask for help, identify a misunderstanding, or revisit the distribution of responsibility?

Agreements matter, and so do the capacities of the people who make them. Withdrawing consent to an intimate act does not depend on negotiating a new agreement; the wider relationship can be discussed separately.

Team Relationship names the capacity to investigate changed facts together. Can the participants approach a problem as something to understand and address within the relationship? Sometimes a different distribution of responsibilities allows the relationship to adapt. Sometimes it reveals that the original arrangement did not fit, or that continuing is no longer appropriate.

The possibility of working together deserves examination alongside the initial attraction and agreement.

Translator’s Notes: the other side of the table

The female companion carries the original’s arguments into a conversational interpretation, with room for recognition and disagreement. It does not claim to speak for every woman.

It emphasizes that recognizing a dominant quality does not make you responsible for building the person who possesses it. It also brings attention to the pace of mutual assessment: an invitation to exchange information leaves room to decline or defer.

The companion revisits the three axes, the legitimacy of asking what an arrangement offers you, and the possibility that familiar roles may need to change when capacity changes. Its invitation is to finish the sentence “I want a dominant man” with enough detail to make your own meaning available.

Original episode chapters

Suggested chapters derived from the supplied transcript timestamps.

• 00:00:00 — Welcome, perspective, and the season
• 00:01:06 — She put the dom in he
• 00:03:47 — Consent and relational authority
• 00:05:28 — From feelings to better information
• 00:07:27 — The Three-Axis Power Description
• 00:10:57 — Personality Assessment Play and Exchange
• 00:13:03 — The default rule of assessment
• 00:14:17 — Can the relationship negotiate when facts change?
• 00:17:00 — Team Relationship
• 00:18:46 — Recap and invitation

Translator’s Notes chapters

Chapter labels and start times supplied with the companion episode.

• 0:00:00 — Authority and Consent
• 0:02:20 — Defining Dominance
• 0:03:36 — Three-Axis Power Model
• 0:05:46 — Assessing Compatibility
• 0:07:14 — Self-Respect in Relationships
• 0:08:30 — Adapting to Change

Reading transcripts

Lightly edited from the supplied automatic transcripts for readability, paragraphing, and clear transcription errors. In the original, “I am Adam” has been corrected to “I am a dom,” consistent with the surrounding passage. These reading editions preserve the speakers’ arguments and language.

Original episode — reading transcript

00:00:00 — Welcome, perspective, and the season

Welcome to Volume Two, To Her, a Podcast by Intend to Relate. Season one is about the spectrum of her relational power and exchange. Ladies, thank you for joining me. And if any of my dudes are listening in, sup. I want to begin this project by restating a disclosure we've made elsewhere. I am a man. Intend to Relate, as a project and body of work, intentionally acknowledges that a significant portion of this work originates from a male perspective, and frankly, a particular kind of gentleman's perspective. So, to her is not me pretending to become a female voice.

I'm not going to put on intellectual lipstick and tell you that I have now discovered what it means to be a woman. This work is meant to speak to her, sometimes from across the table, sometimes from the other side of an agreement, sometimes as somebody who may have information worth considering, sometimes as somebody whose experience is different from yours. And sometimes as somebody who is simply wrong and gives you something useful to disagree with, you keep your mind, that's part of the deal.

00:01:06 — She put the dom in he

And there is another disclosure that becomes particularly relevant to this season, I am a dom. I am a dom. But here's the funny thing, I didn't declare myself one, I didn't grow up studying BDSM, I did not enter adulthood with a signed and notarized my future dominant identity agreement, I didn't know the vocabulary, I wasn't looking for subs, I wasn't wandering around Austin thinking, where are the women who need to call me sir? I was just doing me, doing it reasonably well apparently, and living in complete ignorance of several communities and vocabularies that would later become important to me.

Then came one particularly star-crossed period of my life, Austin, downtown, a beautiful woman, conversation, flirting, whatever electromagnetic nonsense happens between two humans when they have noticed one another. And somewhere in that conversation, she looked at me and essentially said, you're a dom, aren't you? And I said something approximately like, I have absolutely no idea what the fuck that means, but I like the way your lips move when you say it. So I consent to the continuation of those lip movements. And she continued. She taught me quite a lot.

And then another and other experiences and connections and requests and education. Women experienced and knowledgeable about their interests much more than me at that time, were identifying something in me, requesting something from me, explaining a language I didn't yet know, and in some cases, very enthusiastically inviting me to exercise a form of authority they wanted. In all honesty, but for their requests, I probably would have given zero about kink and been rocking on primal custom vanilla till the end of time. They introduced concepts, they introduced practices, they introduced distinctions, they gave me information.

Then I studied, I learned, I experimented, I developed my own philosophy around it, and over time dominance in the relational sense became connected for me with my ethics, philosophy, and professionalism in law, responsibility, leadership, structure, consent, safety and care, freedom, restraint, accountability, negotiated authority. So in honor of those women, thank you. And to wax philosophically, when I reflect on these dynamics and growth, I like to think in terms of the divine feminine, the goddess that through our process of relational becoming can draw a better man out of a boy, or the masculine counter that can inspire a new level of femininity out of a toughened gal perhaps.

To the goddess then, muchas gracias. You put the dom in he, and that gives us our first proposition for this season.

00:03:47 — Consent and relational authority

Here's the principle the Intend to Relate framework affirms as to power exchange relational negotiation. The sub controls the authority at all times and at the outset. The sub preferably selects and requests the dom. The dom does not simply declare himself into authority. In consensual dominance, the person yielding authority must consent to its exercise. The dom does not create relational authority merely by asserting it. She may request it, invite it, recognize a possibility and choose to accept it. The particular form varies. Sometimes someone already knows exactly what she wants.

Sometimes she recognizes something before he does. Sometimes she effectively says, there, that, I want more of that. And in that sense, she may call the dom out of him. Recognizing a dominant quality is not by itself permission to exercise authority. The scope needs to be understood together. Consent remains revocable. Now, I am not saying every dominant man was created by some magical feminine muse. I am describing a relational principle. A person can possess dominant characteristics independently, but relational dominance requires a relationship. Authority over another sovereign adult is not established merely because somebody announces I am dominant.

Congratulations. You have issued a press release that does not give you authority over anybody. In the kind of consensual relationship we are interested in, there is an exchange, an offer, an invitation, an acceptance, an agreement about what is actually being offered and accepted, and that is important because it leads directly into the larger subject of this episode.

00:05:28 — From feelings to better information

Information. You may know the feeling before you know the word. A woman in Austin recognized something before I had the vocabulary for it. Humans do this all the time. You may know that you like a certain kind of man before you can explain why. You know one man makes you relax. Another makes you want to take over. One makes you feel more feminine. Another makes you feel like you've unexpectedly become his supervisor. Someone makes you want to surrender. Someone else makes you think, Jesus Christ, if I don't take control, nothing is ever getting done.

Those experiences are information, they're observations, they're data. But if we don't give the data better language, we collapse very different wants into vague categories. And one of the categories I hear constantly is, I want a dominant man. Okay, what does that mean? Because dominance is not the same thing as provision. Dominance is not the same thing as income. Dominance is not the same thing as competence. Dominance is not the same thing as masculinity. Dominance is not the same thing as sexual topping. Dominance is not the same thing as making every decision.

And consensual dominance is certainly not the same thing as controlling another human being without her consent. Those things can overlap. They are not synonyms. So here is our first proposed correction. Dominance is not provision. If what you mean is, I want a man who financially supports a particular lifestyle, there's already a perfectly usable word for that. Provider. Use it. If you're going to put an income threshold on it, fine. Say the number. We are not offended by specificity here. If what you actually mean is, I want a man making at least $200,000 a year, then say that, but don't automatically convert that economic preference into, I want a dominant man.

Those are different pieces of information. And once we begin separating them, the request becomes much more interesting.

00:07:27 — The Three-Axis Power Description

Let's give ourselves a tool. I want to propose what we'll call for now the Three Axis Power Description. Not three boxes, not three permanent identities. Axis 1, Provision. What kind of material or economic relationship do you want? Do you want roughly equal economic contribution? Do you want a principal provider? Do you want to be the principal provider? Do you want separate financial lives? Do you want one person funding a particular lifestyle? Provision answers a financial and resource question. Axis 2, Relational Authority. How do you want leadership and decision making to work?

Dominant, submissive, switch, shared decision making, domain-specific authority? Do you want him making certain decisions but not others? Do you want substantial household control yourself while wanting him capable of taking command in particular situations? That is a different axis. Axis 3, Sexual Position and Power. What roles and dynamics do you want sexually? Top, bottom, dominant, submissive, switch, initiator, receiver, something more complicated? And remember, top does not necessarily mean dominant, bottom does not necessarily mean submissive. Position and authority are distinguishable even within this third area. We're using three starting questions, not pretending we've exhausted every dimension.

That's exactly why we need better vocabulary. So now compare these two statements. Statement 1, I want a dominant man who makes $200,000, okay? Statement 2, I want a man with the economic capacity and desire to function as our principal provider. Relationally, I prefer a switch because I want substantial decision-making authority myself, but I also want a partner capable of taking command when appropriate. Sexually, I generally prefer him to top me. Holy shit. Now we have information. That is not morally a better desire. It is a higher resolution request.

And higher resolution matters because human beings have complicated power profiles. You might be dominant professionally and submissive sexually. You might want a provider while retaining substantial household authority. You might enjoy being topped and absolutely hate being managed. You may run 300 employees all day and desperately want one place in your life where someone competent looks at you and says, I've got it. You may want him to pay the mortgage and have zero interest in letting him decide how the kitchen operates. You may want a man to pin you to the bed and then ask, where would you like to go for dinner?

None of those things is inherently contradictory. It only looks contradictory if your entire model of human power is one little slider labeled. Masculine, Feminine, that's inadequate. Human relational power is multi-dimensional, and that is where relational intelligence starts feeding into intentionality. First, what is actually true about me? Then, what am I actually asking another person to be? Then does that person know what I'm asking? Because if he thinks you hired him to captain the ship, while you actually expect him to operate the engine room, while you retain the bridge, you are going to have a fascinating argument approximately 18 months from now.

That doesn't necessarily mean somebody lied. Sometimes neither person understood the arrangement clearly enough to describe it. That's why we want more information earlier.

00:10:57 — Personality Assessment Play and Exchange

Early does not mean interrogation. Now, I like information early, very early, probably earlier than most people. I can get into power dynamics, sex, attachment, ambition, family, death, God and your childhood before the appetizers arrive. That's just me. Not everybody wants to do that. Fine. We are not advocating that a first date become a deposition. What we're advocating is something more playful. We already have a name for it, Personality Assessment Play and Exchange. Personality Assessment Play and Exchange is the intentional and mutual use of questions, stories, tests, games, frameworks, classifications and observations to learn how another person experiences themselves while offering yourself for similar assessment in return.

The exchange matters. This isn't, I secretly profile you. It is, let's learn something about each other. What does submission mean to you? What does leadership mean to you? What does equality mean to you? What happens when you get overwhelmed? Do you like making decisions? What kind of decisions? Do you enjoy taking care of someone? What does being provided for mean to you? What happens when somebody disagrees with you? What do you like when you're stressed? What do you want somebody else to take off your plate?

That's good information. Tests can generate conversation. Attachment instruments can generate conversation. Kink inventories can generate conversation. Personality frameworks can generate conversation, but there is an important rule. The instrument is not the person. We're not trying to take a 20-question test and declare, congratulations, the Internet has revealed your soul. The point is, tell me more about how you experience yourself. Then reality gets a vote, because this is still phenomenological relating. We apprehend, we notice, we assess, we become curious. Possibilities reveal themselves. And then perhaps an invitation becomes warranted.

The better our information about the person standing in front of us, the better we can assess the possibilities we're imagining.

00:13:03 — The default rule of assessment

Which brings us to one of the deliberately crude tools in this framework, the default rule of assessment. This rule is intentionally simple. It is intentionally vulgar. It is intentionally easy to remember. And you are not necessarily supposed to walk around literally saying it to people. The default rule of assessment is, who the fuck are you? What the fuck do you want? What's in it for me? That's it. Who the fuck are you? What the fuck do you want? What's in it for me? Now, what's in it for me does not mean, how can I exploit this person?

It means, what relationship am I being invited into? What value does this possibility have for me? What am I being asked to give? What am I being asked to risk? What am I being asked to exchange? And once we move from assessment toward actual relationship, ethical instrumentalism requires the reciprocal question, what's in it for you? Because a good agreement does not merely answer, how do I get what I want? It asks, what are we each offering? What are we each seeking? Do those things fit? That's assessment.

That's self-respect. That's manners. That's snake wisdom. And hopefully, it helps produce fewer people wandering into relationships that were incomprehensible from the beginning.

00:14:17 — Can the relationship negotiate when facts change?

But there is another piece of assessment that I think is so important that I want to close episode one with it. Is this relationship negotiable? You've figured out who he is. Maybe you've figured out what he wants. Maybe you've figured out what you want. Hopefully, you've mapped the provision axis, the authority axis, the sexual axis. Fantastic. Now, I want to know something else. What happens when the facts change? Because they will. You found your provider. Excellent. Then he loses his job. You found your dominant. Excellent.

Then he becomes overwhelmed. You found your beautifully competent woman. Excellent. Then her mother gets sick. Someone stops sleeping. Someone's hormones change. A baby arrives. A parent dies. The business fails. The business succeeds and suddenly consumes 80 hours a week. Someone gets depressed. Someone becomes sick. Someone becomes frightened. Someone who normally has extraordinary capacity suddenly has very little. Someone who was dependent becomes much stronger. Someone who wanted to submit no longer trusts the judgment of the person she was submitting to. And suddenly the original arrangement is encountering reality.

So one of the most valuable things you can assess in another human being is not merely whether that person agrees with you today. It is, can this person negotiate when reality changes? Not, will they surrender every time I ask for a change? That's not negotiation. Not, can every agreement disappear whenever somebody becomes uncomfortable? That's not what I'm saying either. And to be clear, withdrawing consent to an intimate act does not require a successful negotiation. You can stop. Revisiting the wider relationship is a separate conversation. Negotiability means, can this relationship talk about itself?

Can we say, this isn't working the way we intended? I cannot perform what I promised right now. I need help. I need you to take over this domain. I need some of my authority back. I need more structure. I need less structure. We misunderstood this. The facts have changed. We need to revisit the arrangement. That does not mean agreements are meaningless. It means agreements exist between organisms with changing capacities. We are creatures of capacity. This is something I want us to return to repeatedly. Human sovereignty is real.

Human capacity is limited. Those propositions coexist. People get tired. People get stressed. Attention fails. Emotion affects judgment. Resources disappear. Bodies change. Circumstances change. Sometimes a person sincerely intends to perform a role and temporarily cannot. We should not pretend otherwise.

00:17:00 — Team Relationship

That brings us to a concept that I think is especially important for To Her: Team Relationship. When a problem arrives, what team are you on? Are you inside the relationship trying to understand what happened? Or have you immediately become the prosecutor? Because I know prosecutors, I know opposing counsel, I know disputes, I have spent a large part of my professional life dealing with human beings and organizations after something has already gone wrong. And sometimes adversarial posture is necessary. Sometimes someone lied, sometimes somebody violated a boundary, sometimes somebody is dangerous.

Sometimes somebody broke the deal, sometimes you leave. But there is an enormous territory before that point where the question is, are we still on the same team trying to solve a problem? Because there is a huge difference between you and me versus the problem and you are the problem. Team relationship means we preserve some capacity to investigate changed facts together. The dominant may temporarily need help. The submissive may need to lead. The provider may temporarily be unable to provide. The person who normally manages the household may need someone else to take over.

The emotionally steady person may suddenly be the person falling apart. Changing formation does not automatically mean the team ceases to exist. Sometimes it means the relationship is adapting. Sometimes it reveals that the original architecture was wrong. Sometimes the renegotiation fails. That is information too. But I want to know early whether we have a person capable of participating in that conversation. Because eventually every relationship meets reality. And reality does not give a shit what you checked on the questionnaire.

00:18:46 — Recap and invitation

So let's recap. Women helped call dominance out of me. That gives us our first proposition. Consensual relational dominance requires consent to the authority being exercised. It is not created merely by declaration. Then we separated things people routinely collapse together. Dominance is not provision. And we proposed a three-axis power description, provision, relational authority, sexual position and power. We proposed gathering that information intentionally and sometimes playfully through personality assessment, play and exchange. And we introduced the default rule of assessment. Who the fuck are you? What the fuck do you want?

What's in it for me? And then when a relationship actually starts appearing possible, what's in it for you? But finally, I want one more question burned into the assessment. When reality changes, can we talk? Because reality will change. The provider may fail to provide. The dominant may lose capacity. The submissive may need authority. The independent woman may need help. The powerful man may need someone to hold his shit together for a minute. And if those changes automatically transform two partners into adversaries, then maybe we did not have the relationship architecture we thought we had.

So before we get deeper into her power, before we talk about submission, dominance, provision, sexuality, communication, consent, boundaries, rules, and all the strange, beautiful shit human beings do with each other, let's begin with information. Know something about yourself. Ask something meaningful about the person in front of you. Increase the resolution, then see what reality reveals. That is where we begin. Welcome to To Her. Be free and be good to each other. Intentionally.

Translator’s Notes — reading transcript

0:00:00 — Authority and Consent

Translator's Notes, A Companion to Volume Two, To Her, Season One, Episode One. She put the Dom in He. I want a dominant man, I have said that sentence. Maybe you have too. And last episode, a man looked at it and asked a very rude, very useful question. Okay, what does that mean? Welcome to Translator's Notes, the Companion to Volume Two, To Her, from Intend to Relate. Let me make my own disclosure since Z'jip made his, he told you he's a man, and that he isn't putting on intellectual lipstick to speak as you.

Fair. I'm not speaking for you either. Women don't share one brain, one desire, or one opinion about dominant men. What I can do is take what he said, carry it across the table, and put it in words that may land differently coming from this side. Where I think he's right, I'll say so. Where you might push back, I'll say that too. He said it himself. You keep your mind. That's part of the deal. So let's go. Translation 1. He didn't appoint himself. The episode opens with a story.

Downtown Austin, a beautiful woman, some flirting, and she says to him, You're a Dom, aren't you? He had no idea what that meant. Then another woman said something similar. Then another. His point is not that women discovered how great he is. His point is about where authority comes from. Here's the translation. A man does not become your dominant by announcing it. Z'jip's line was that I am dominant is a press release. It is not permission. In the kind of relationship this show cares about, authority exists because the person yielding it agreed to it.

You might request it, invite it, or recognize it in him and choose to accept it. That puts real power on your side of the table, ladies. You may be the one who calls it out of him. Now, he built in two cautions, and I want to underline them for us. First, noticing is not handing over. If you say, you'd make a good dom on a first date, you have made an observation. You have not signed anything. The scope still has to be worked out together. Second, consent stays revocable.

You can give authority and you can take it back. That's not flakiness. That's how consent works. One more thing, said gently, calling something out of him doesn't make you responsible for building him. You can recognize a quality without becoming his project manager.

0:02:20 — Defining Dominance

Translation 2, I want a dominant man, decoded. Before we have words, we have feelings. One man makes you relax. Another makes you think, if I don't take over, nothing's ever getting done. Z'jip calls those reactions data. They're real and they're worth listening to. The trouble is that we often file very different data under one phrase. Dominant man. He listed what tends to get crammed in there. Provision, income, competence, masculinity, sexual topping, making every decision. They can overlap. They are not the same thing. The big one is this.

Dominance is not provision. If what you want is a man who financially supports a certain life, the word is provider. And if you have a number in mind, he's explicit that you can say the number. Nobody here is offended by specificity. I know some of us flinch at that. We were taught that naming money makes us look like gold diggers, so we dress it up as, I want a man who takes charge. Translation, that dressing up costs you. A man who hears dominant may think you want him to lead the relationship when what you wanted was security and your own say over everything else.

Saying provider isn't greedy, it's clear, and clear is kind. To him and to you.

0:03:36 — Three-Axis Power Model

Translation Three, the Three Axis Power Description. To pull those things apart, Z'jip offered a tool he calls the Three Axis Power Description. He was careful to say it isn't three boxes or three permanent identities. It's three questions. Axis One is provision. What material or economic relationship do you want? Equal contribution, him as the principal provider, you as the principal provider, separate finances. Axis Two is relational authority. How should leadership and decisions work? Dominant, submissive, switch, shared, or split by domain. Axis Three is sexual position and power.

What roles and dynamics do you want sexually? Top, bottom, dominant, submissive, switch, initiator, receiver, or something more complicated. Here's the line I'd tape to the mirror. Top does not necessarily mean dominant, and bottom does not necessarily mean submissive. Even inside the bedroom, position and authority are different things. Now listen to how much changes when you answer all three. One version, I want a dominant man who makes $200,000. The other version from the episode, you want a principal provider. Relationally, a switch because you want real decision making authority yourself, but also a partner who can take command when it's called for.

And sexually, you'd like him to top. His comment was, holy shit, now we have information. And he was clear that the second desire isn't morally better. It's just a higher resolution request. This is the part I most want women to hear. You can run 300 people at work and want one place in the life where a competent man says, I've got it. You can want him to pay the mortgage and never touch how your kitchen runs. You can want to be pinned to the bed and then asked where you'd like to go for dinner.

None of that is a contradiction. It only looks like one if you think power is a single slider from masculine to feminine. It isn't. Yours has at least three dials. So try this at home. Answer each of the three questions in your own words. Then ask the harder question from the episode. Does the person I'm with know this is what I'm asking for?

0:05:46 — Assessing Compatibility

Translation 4. Personality Assessment, Play and Exchange. So how do you get that kind of information without turning the date into a deposition? Z'jip admits he'll get into Sex, God and Your Childhood before the appetizers arrive. He also admits that's just him. His answer is Personality Assessment, Play and Exchange. Using Questions, Stories, Tests, Games and Frameworks together, on purpose, to learn how each of you experiences yourselves. The key word is Exchange. It isn't him secretly profiling you, and it isn't you running a background check on him.

It's, let's learn something about each other, and both people get assessed. A few of his questions are worth stealing. What does submission mean to you? What happens when you get overwhelmed? What does being provided for mean to you? What would you love somebody to take off your plate? Then comes his rule. The instrument is not the person. A kink quiz or an attachment test is a conversation starter. It doesn't reveal anyone's soul. You take it, and then you say, tell me more about how you experience yourself, and then reality gets a vote.

A practical note from this side of the table. Exchange means you choose your pace. If a man hands you a kink inventory on date two and you're not ready, not yet is a full answer. Your results are yours to share or to keep. A man who's really playing this game will offer his own answers first, and he won't sulk if you pass.

0:07:14 — Self-Respect in Relationships

Translation 5, the default rule of assessment. Now for the part he called deliberately crude, his words, not mine, though I'll admit they're memorable. The default rule of assessment is three questions. Who the fuck are you? What the fuck do you want? What's in it for me? He's not suggesting you say this across the table. It's a rule for the inside of your head. Let's sit with that third question, because I think it's harder for many of us than it is for him. A lot of women were raised to ask a different first question.

What does he need and how do I become it? So what's in it for me can feel selfish. Z'jip was clear that it doesn't mean how can I exploit this person. It means, what am I being invited into? What am I being asked to give, to risk, to exchange? Translation, you're allowed to ask that. Asking is self-respect, not greed. And then the rule turns around. Once a real relationship starts looking possible, the episode adds the reciprocal question. What's in it for you? A good agreement doesn't just ask how I get what I want.

It asks what we're each offering, what we're each seeking and whether those things fit. He called that self-respect, manners, snake wisdom. I'd add, it saves a lot of arguments 18 months from now.

0:08:30 — Adapting to Change

Translation 6. When reality changes, can we talk? This is where the episode stops being about finding the right man and starts being about keeping a real relationship. Say you've mapped all three axes and found someone who matches. Wonderful. Then he loses his job. Or your dominant gets overwhelmed. Or your mother gets sick and the woman who ran everything suddenly can't. A baby comes, a business fails, or it succeeds and eats 80 hours a week. Z'jip's question is this. Can this relationship talk about itself? Can either of you say, I can't do what I promised right now, or I need some of my authority back, or the facts have changed?

He was careful about what that doesn't mean. It doesn't mean one person caves every time the other wants a change. It doesn't mean agreements evaporate the moment someone's uncomfortable. It means we're creatures of capacity. Human sovereignty is real. Human capacity is limited. Both are true at once. Here's the line I want every woman to hear clearly because he said it plainly. Withdrawing consent to an intimate act does not require a successful negotiation. You can stop. Talking about the wider relationship is a separate conversation for later.

Then he names the concept I think matters most for us. Team relationship. When trouble shows up, are you inside the relationship trying to understand what happened? Or have you become the prosecutor? It's the difference between you and me versus the problem and you are the problem. Now, he doesn't ask you to stay on the team no matter what. Someone may have lied, crossed a boundary, or be dangerous. Sometimes you leave and that's right. But there is a big stretch of territory before that point. In it, the provider may need to be carried for a while.

The submissive may need to lead. The steady one may be the one falling apart. Changing formation doesn't mean the team is gone. Sometimes it means the relationship is adapting. Sometimes it shows the original setup was wrong. Either way, that's information. So add one question to everything you ask early. If life knocks us sideways, is this a person who can sit down and talk about it with me? So ladies, here's episode one, carried across the table. One, his authority starts with your yes, recognizing a dominant quality isn't permission and consent stays revocable.

Two, dominance is not provision. If you want a provider, say provider and say the number if there is one. Three, your power has three dials, provision, relational authority, sexual position and power, and top isn't automatically dominant. Four, learn each other through exchange and remember the instrument is not the person. Five, ask what's in it for you. Then ask what's in it for him. Six, ask whether he can talk when reality changes and whether you're both still on team relationship. The next time you hear yourself say, I want a dominant man, don't stop there.

Finish the sentence, then tell us in the comments. Which of these helped you name something you already knew about yourself? And where would you push back, on him or on me? You don't have to agree to join the conversation. This has been Translator's Notes for To Her from Intend to Relate. Be free and be good to each other intentionally.

Related concepts and the next conversation

This episode introduces consensual relational authority, the Three-Axis Power Description, Personality Assessment Play and Exchange, the default rule of assessment, ethical instrumentalism, negotiability, and Team Relationship.

Episode Two, “In the beginning was the Word with Power, and the Word was Power,” takes the next step: expressing what you want, making truthful invitations, and developing shared agreements.

Join us on Volume Two: To Her

For the shared vocabulary and orientation, begin with Season One of the original Intend to Relate Podcast.

An invitation

Try answering the three axis questions in your own words. Which distinction helps you name something you already knew about yourself? Where would you push back on the original or the companion?

Bring your judgment, your experience, and your questions. You do not have to agree to join the conversation.

About Intend to Relate

Intend to Relate is an ongoing exploration of human relationships through sovereignty, understanding, assent, and intentional participation. To Her accompanies the development of Volume Two of the canon.

Be free, and be good to each other—intentionally.