Vetting Goes Both Ways
We tell submissives to vet Dominants.
Ask questions.
Check references when appropriate.
Watch behavior.
Pay attention to boundaries.
Look at communication.
Notice how they handle being told no.
Listen to how they talk about previous partners.
Watch what happens when they’re wrong.
All excellent advice.
But somewhere in the way we talk about BDSM vetting, we’ve created a strange picture of what vetting is supposed to look like.
The submissive sits on one side of the table carefully evaluating the Dominant.
The Dominant sits on the other side answering questions and demonstrating whether they’re worthy of trust.
Except healthy power exchange doesn’t begin with one person interviewing another for a position.
And it raises an important question:
Who’s vetting the submissive?
Then perhaps an even more interesting one:
Who is each person becoming while they’re being vetted?
Because a Dominant considering someone’s submission isn’t merely deciding whether they find that person attractive.
They may eventually be accepting expectations, vulnerability, emotional investment, communication needs, rituals, rules, accountability, and some degree of authority over another human being.
That deserves discernment too.
And the submissive isn’t applying for a position underneath someone.
They’re deciding whether this particular human being is someone they can responsibly trust with whatever authority they’re considering giving.
Neither person should simply be trying to get chosen.
Both should be choosing.
What Is BDSM Vetting Actually For?
I think we sometimes make BDSM vetting unnecessarily adversarial.
One person is trying to uncover problems.
The other is trying not to have any.
But the purpose of vetting isn’t to prove someone deserves you.
It’s to discover whether the two of you make sense together.
That requires answering several different questions.
Is this person reasonably safe to continue exploring?
Are we actually compatible?
Can we responsibly build the kind of relationship or power exchange we’re discussing?
Those aren’t the same question.
Someone can be a wonderful person and completely wrong for you.
Someone can be an experienced, responsible Dominant and still be the wrong Dominant for a particular submissive.
Someone can be a thoughtful, self-aware submissive and still be the wrong submissive for a particular Dominant.
Sometimes BDSM vetting ends with two decent people discovering they shouldn’t build a dynamic together.
“I respect you. I like you. And I don’t think we should build this together.”
That’s not failed vetting.
That’s vetting doing exactly what it was supposed to do.
Vetting Shouldn’t Feel Like a Job Interview
The interview model creates another problem.
Someone becomes the interviewer.
Someone becomes the applicant.
And applicants want the job.
So instead of answering honestly, people can begin answering strategically.
What answer makes me sound like a good Dominant?
What answer makes me sound like a desirable submissive?
Should I admit I need more communication than they seem to want?
Should I tell them I’m inexperienced?
Maybe I shouldn’t mention that insecurity.
Maybe that limit sounds too restrictive.
Maybe I can handle more protocol than I think.
Maybe I should seem more confident.
Now neither person is learning very much.
They’re auditioning.
Healthy vetting should increasingly feel like mutual discovery.
Not:
“How do I convince you I’m the Dominant or submissive you’re looking for?”
But:
“What happens if we put who you actually are next to who I actually am?”
Now we can talk honestly about needs.
Limitations.
Experience.
Expectations.
Communication.
Relationship structures.
Capacity.
Desires.
Boundaries.
Because you cannot discover compatibility while auditioning for approval.
What Should a Submissive Be Vetting?
If you’re considering giving someone meaningful authority, you’re trying to understand the human being who might eventually hold it.
How do they respond to boundaries?
What happens when they’re told no?
How do they handle being wrong?
What happens when they’re frustrated?
What does accountability mean to them?
What do they believe authority entitles them to?
More importantly, what responsibilities do they believe authority creates?
How do they communicate during conflict?
How do they describe former partners or submissives?
Do their actions consistently resemble the identity they present?
How do they approach consent and negotiation?
Aftercare?
Drop?
Risk?
Emotional safety?
What kind of relationship are they actually trying to build?
And does that relationship resemble the one you want?
One question I think matters enormously is:
Can I remain a whole person around them?
You’re not looking for a flawless Dominant.
You won’t find one.
You’re trying to understand the person behind the title well enough to decide whether increasing trust makes sense.
What Should a Dominant Be Vetting?
Dominants should be doing just as much discernment.
The question isn’t simply:
“Will this person submit to me?”
Submission alone tells me very little about whether I should accept it.
What does submission mean to this person?
What are they hoping power exchange will provide?
What do they expect from a Dominant?
Can they communicate their needs?
Can they disagree?
Can they tell me no?
Can they identify their boundaries?
What happens when they’re disappointed?
How do they handle accountability?
How much structure are they actually looking for?
What happens when life disrupts that structure?
Are they looking for leadership?
Belonging?
Service?
Sexual exploration?
Lifestyle structure?
Constant reassurance?
Emotional regulation?
Rescue?
Some combination of those?
And perhaps one of the most important questions:
Do I actually have the capacity to provide what this person is asking for?
This isn’t about determining whether someone is “submissive enough.”
It’s about understanding what accepting their submission would actually mean.
Someone offering me something precious doesn’t automatically mean I’m equipped to take responsibility for it.
Some Questions Belong to Both of You
Eventually, role-specific BDSM vetting becomes shared compatibility work.
How do we communicate?
How do we handle conflict?
What does repair look like?
What are our expectations?
What relationship structure are we discussing?
How much time do we realistically have?
What are our sexual needs?
Where does kink fit?
What are our emotional needs?
Boundaries?
Limits?
Privacy?
Community involvement?
Other partners?
Jealousy?
Rituals?
Rules?
Protocol?
Aftercare?
Drop?
What happens when one of us has less capacity?
What are we imagining six months from now?
A year?
What happens when life gets difficult?
Because compatibility isn’t one question.
Two people can match beautifully in kink and fail miserably in communication.
They can have extraordinary sexual chemistry and completely incompatible relationship expectations.
They can both want D/s and have radically different ideas about what living D/s actually means.
Wanting the same label doesn’t mean wanting the same relationship.
Character and Compatibility Are Not the Same Thing
I think this distinction gets lost when every BDSM vetting conversation becomes a discussion about red and green flags.
Those matter.
Character matters enormously.
But not every reason to say no needs to become a red flag.
Sometimes nobody did anything wrong.
You simply don’t fit.
A character question asks:
Is this behavior something I should be concerned about?
A compatibility question asks:
Does the way this person lives, communicates, relates, or practices D/s work with me?
Imagine a Dominant who wants frequent protocol and structured expectations.
A submissive wants power exchange primarily during scenes and sexual intimacy.
Neither is wrong.
They’re probably incompatible.
A submissive may want frequent communication and regular reassurance.
A Dominant may prefer substantial independence between interactions.
Again, neither preference automatically indicates poor character.
One person practices polyamory.
The other wants monogamy.
One loves public community involvement.
The other highly values privacy.
One wants extensive rules and rituals.
The other prefers authority exercised primarily through judgment rather than formal structure.
None of those differences requires a villain.
Vetting should help us discover incompatibility before we start trying to change each other into compatible partners.
Stop Trying So Hard to Get Chosen
Vetting becomes considerably harder when you desperately want the relationship to work.
Attraction gets involved.
Hope gets involved.
Maybe loneliness does too.
Suddenly the question quietly changes.
Instead of asking:
“Are we compatible?”
You start asking:
“How do I make sure they choose me?”
Now needs become negotiable.
Limits become softer than they really are.
Expectations get agreed to before they’re properly considered.
Experience gets exaggerated.
Needs get minimized.
Incompatibilities get explained away.
Questions that would normally bother you suddenly don’t seem important.
You begin answering according to what you think the other person wants to hear.
And the entire purpose of vetting collapses.
Because again:
You cannot discover compatibility while auditioning for approval.
You aren’t trying to win the person sitting across from you.
You’re trying to understand whether the relationship the two of you could realistically create is one either of you should want.
Vet Yourself Too
Here’s the part we sometimes forget.
The person across from you isn’t the only person who needs examination.
What am I actually looking for?
What can I realistically offer?
What am I hoping this relationship will fix?
What expectations am I carrying from fantasy rather than experience?
What happens to me when I feel rejected?
How do I handle disagreement?
Can I communicate a boundary before I’m angry?
Can I hear someone else’s boundary without experiencing it as rejection?
What responsibilities am I actually prepared to accept?
What parts of me become difficult when attachment gets involved?
Am I ready for what I’m asking another human being to build with me?
Self-vetting doesn’t mean convincing yourself you’re worthy.
It means understanding yourself well enough to give another person accurate information about what partnering with you actually involves.
You are gathering information about them while they’re gathering information about you. Both of you should also be gathering information about yourselves.
Vetting Cannot Give You Certainty
No workbook, conversation, reference check, list of BDSM vetting questions, or six-month getting-to-know-you period can remove every risk from human relationships.
People change.
Circumstances change.
Compatibility changes.
People can misrepresent themselves.
And some things can only be learned through time and experience.
A person’s reputation doesn’t replace your judgment.
Neither does their title.
Their follower count doesn’t.
Their experience doesn’t.
Neither does the number of people willing to tell you they’re wonderful.
Vetting improves the quality of the information you’re using to make a decision.
It doesn’t guarantee the outcome.
Trust still develops through experience.
Why I Keep Coming Back to Vetting
A lot of what I’ve written about vetting eventually became part of Before the Collar: The Complete Guide to Vetting Healthy BDSM Relationships.
The book explores the larger picture: behavior, compatibility, communication, trust, consent, expectations, healthy power exchange, and perhaps most importantly, learning to see the person behind the role.
But I discovered something while building it.
Reading about vetting and actually sitting down to examine your own relationship are different things.
Understanding a concept isn’t the same as working through the questions when another human being is sitting across from you and you desperately hope the answers fit.
That distinction eventually led me to create two separate vetting workbooks.
Why Two Workbooks?
On Friday, October 9, I’m officially launching both:
The Ultimate Vetting Workbook for Dominants
and
The Ultimate Vetting Workbook for Submissives.
I didn’t create two because submissives are supposed to vet while Dominants sit around looking impressive.
Nor because Dominants need to evaluate whether someone has earned the privilege of submitting.
Both people should be vetting.
But they’re approaching the potential relationship from different positions.
Some questions overlap.
They should.
But each person is also considering different responsibilities, vulnerabilities, expectations, and consequences.
A submissive may ultimately be asking:
“Can I responsibly trust this person with the authority I’m considering giving?”
A Dominant may be asking:
“Can I responsibly accept the authority and responsibility this person is considering giving me?”
Those aren’t identical questions.
Both matter.
Both people are vetting.
Both people are choosing.
Don’t Forget to Choose
Healthy BDSM vetting isn’t one person deciding whether the other qualifies.
It is:
Two people deciding whether what exists between them deserves to become something more.
Sometimes the answer will be yes.
Sometimes it will be no.
Sometimes the answer will be:
Not yet.
We need more time.
We need more information.
We want different things.
And sometimes two good people will look at each other and realize that liking one another isn’t enough to make the relationship work.
That’s not failure.
That’s discernment.
So don’t spend your entire vetting process trying to get chosen.
Choose too.
Because the purpose of vetting isn’t to prove someone deserves you.
It’s to discover whether the two of you make sense together.
Explore Both Vetting Workbooks
The Ultimate Vetting Workbook for Dominants and The Ultimate Vetting Workbook for Submissives officially launch together Friday, October 9.
They were built around the same principle at the heart of this article:
Vetting goes both ways.
Each workbook approaches vetting from the perspective, responsibilities, questions, and decisions relevant to the person using it, because healthy power exchange should begin with two informed people choosing what they’re actually prepared to build together.
#SexyWordsmith
