A Comprehensive Definition of Kink

All of the definitions I’ve seen for kink fall short, so I had to develop my own. This became relevant because I’ve been accepted to speak at the Popular Culture Association’s 2022 national conference in The Eros, Pornography, & Popular Culture Area. Since this is an academic space, not a kink one, I feel that I need to bust myths and provide a workable framework for outsiders or those on the fringes of the kink scene to use. I want to create something that can help people understand, talk about, and study the behavior of others.

First, let us consider why other definitions fall short. The most common definition of kink that I’ve read has two elements: (1) non-normative (2) sexual behavior. I’d like to examine the ways that both of these elements fall short.

The terms non-normative, bizarre, or unconventional, as used in other definitions, aren’t specific enough for this context. Upon consideration, I found there are two entities whose perception of the behavior matters: The participants and their society. If the participants find their behavior abnormal but their society doesn’t, it’s a dirty secret or guilty pleasure. If the society finds their behavior abnormal but the participants don’t, they are outsiders. 

This makes kink relativistic. By previous definitions (“non-normative sexual behavior”), any culturally unacceptable sexual behavior could be considered kink, such as gay sex in a society that considers homosexuality immoral. However, if we consider the perspective of the participants as well as their society, it’s likely not kink, as the participants probably consider their own behavior normal and acceptable.

The second element of the common definitions of kink also falls short. As I found when I began going to The Woodshed in 2016, not all kink is sexual. Some is indirectly sexual for the kinksters involved – They might get mentally and or physically turned on by the act, but not have sex right then and there. Additionally, for many kinksters, their behavior is satisfying in an absolutely nonsexual way.

I struggled for a while trying to find a word or phrase that includes both sexual and nonsexual motivations for kink. For some people, kink is purely a sensation activity. For others, it’s about connections with other people. My working phrase is “intimacy practice.” 

The element that kink is performed by consenting, informed adults was absent in previous definitions, but I feel that it’s necessary to distinguish kink from abuse or assault. Therefore, everyone involved must be an adult who understands what’s going on and agrees to be part of it.

Therefore, the definition of kink that I’ve developed is as follows: (1) An intimacy practice (2) performed by consenting, informed adults (3 & 4) that both the participants and their society consider taboo.

I hope to iterate on this definition as I hear feedback from kinksters and potentially develop better, more precise language to describe kink itself.

How would you define kink? Is it something where you know it when you see it? Are there exceptions to my definition that I haven’t considered? Please leave them in the comments below or email me at

Thank you!~

Kink Reflection

Universal Needs and Power Exchange

I am fascinated with the mental aspects of power exchange. Rope and pain play are wonderful, and yet they only call to me as a physical manifestation of the mental control that power exchange offers. And I often wonder how needs play into power exchange relationships. Does one person give up their needs for another? Who really has a choice in the matter?

I have found that the best methodology to discuss needs in a meaningful way is Nonviolent Communication (NVC). For those unfamiliar, NVC is a communication methodology and philosophy of life that was pioneered in the 1960s by the late Marshall Rosenberg. NVC has flourished and is practiced all over the world, in interpersonal relationships and international crises.

A core principle of NVC is that there are a universal set of needs that humans share. You might relate this to a pyramid representing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that you have seen. Everyone, across all time, geography, gender, race, and other separations share the same needs, yet strategies to meet those needs differ. For example, we all desire connection, yet while I might want to catch up over coffee, you might want to go to a dance party. (Ohh, to be in the days of coffee dates and dance parties once again!) 

As I am deeply interested in both NVC and power exchange, I often wonder what different needs are being met for various people in power exchange relationships. Perhaps a particular submissive craves safety, belonging, and demonstrating competence in their relationship, while their Dominant may desire pleasure, consistency, and ease. These roles are intentionally different, so the needs satisfied are also different. 

I can see that a power exchange relationship, and in fact every relationship, is made up of a series of strategies. In my article “What’s Choice Got to Do With It?: Thoughts on Choosing Submission,” I explored choice. I contradicted a common refrain about Master/slave relationships when I discussed choice in these relationships.

Even in a relationship with a blanket consent policy, we actively choose to view how we perceive the actions of those that control us. We chose who we gave that power, and we choose to stay with them every day. Our lives are full of choices, even a life filled with submission.

Yet, that’s not the full extent. 

In the past, when I was first taught the language of Nonviolent Communication, I believed that strategies that met someone else’s needs must be at the expense of my needs. If my partner wants to watch a movie, and I want to play a card game, when we watch a movie at the end of the day, aren’t I sacrificing for him? Thus, I have the moral high ground, and I can leverage that against him when we next have a conflict: “I watched a movie for you! Don’t you want to meet my needs?” I know now that this is using the language of NVC to contradict the intentions.

The intention I’ve been focusing on lately has been prioritizing connection. According to Miki Kashtan, this involves “…[focusing] on connecting open-heartedly with everyone’s needs before seeking solutions, even in challenging situations.” When I watch a movie with my partner, I am choosing to meet one need over another. Perhaps I wanted stimulation through the game, yet I chose peace by preventing a conflict with my partner. Again, this comes back to choice. Even when I’m in a dire situation, I choose how I view a situation and that impacts the needs it meets. If my initial strategy isn’t the one we do, I can choose to pick a fight, thus satisfying my need to be seen and express myself authenticly. However, by turning the mind, I can focus instead on empathy and companionship.

When I bring this to a power exchange context, I am reminded of a passage from Slavecraft:

…[S]laves with this point of view get to a place in our heads where every time we give something up for the Master, we feel that our slavery, our surrender, is renewed and reinforced. So i’ve lost the pleasure of seeing the building [that i wanted to see], but i’ve gained my slavery. i’ve lost the opportunity to make that phone call [that i wanted to make], but i’ve gained my slavery. And when slavery is the most important thing in the world, joy is the result in my life.

SlaveCraft: Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude by Guy Baldwin

The perspective of slavery, that intentionally cultivated frame of mind, deeply meets the needs that the author prioritizes. He chooses to see the denial of his personal strategies as a strategy in itself. It’s beautiful to me.

Perhaps I’m getting too heady here. Does this view of needs within power exchange resonate with you? Please let me know.