We usually think of there as being a dichotomy between things that are kinky and things that are vanilla. Kinky things often involve power exchange while vanilla things are just about sex. Vanilla is normal and kink is queer.
Over the course of my ten years as a bisexual and recently post-op trans woman, I have been with many a queer person and many a straight man. With every year of transition, more and more men treat me with chivalry.
Most men I go on dates with are self-identified leftists or some other kind of progressive feminist ally whatever. They're going on a date with an openly transgender union organizer, it's not surprising they'd be all for trans rights and gender equality. Despite this, almost all of them still default to traditional gendered behaviors towards me including opening doors, paying for dates, walking me home, walking on the outside of the sidewalk, and so forth.
All of these little behaviors are unasked for and certainly not expected of them by someone like me. All of these little actions carry an old traditional symbolism.
- Paying for dates is a way of demonstrating wealth and his ability to provide for a woman. It shows that if she gave up her independence, she would live comfortably as his pet housewife rearing his children. It says "I have more money than you do, and therefore more power."
- Opening doors and pulling out seats generally force women to move as directed by the man. It symbolically places them on a tract. "Right this way, go where I am gesturing you to."
- Walking someone home, and walking on the outside of the sidewalk, sends the message "I can protect you. I am bigger and stronger than you. I have power"
And all of these are completely demonstrably false in the year 2023 on pretty much all of these dates I go on.
- I frequently earn more money than my dates given my career as a librarian. They still insist on paying for dates and feel inadequate or disgruntled if anything reminds them that I earn more.
- I was going to go through that door or sit in that chair anyway.
- I walked alone to the date perfectly fine without his protection, obviously I'd be fine walking home from the date as well, especially if the sun is still up. And it's not like he's big and strong enough to stop a car from hitting me. Also when you lift books all day and run around a library you get stronger than people who work as writers or office workers generally.
But I, like most other women going on a date with a straight man, play along with these little gestures because it makes the man feel good to do them and it honestly feels kinda nice, kinda hot to pretend that this guy has more power than me through all these little gestures. We both know I earn more, made my own path-finding decisions, and can walk around the city safely on my own. But we do a little unspoken dance to pretend that's not the case because that's how heterosexuality works and straight men feel inadequate and bad if they don't do it. Even the ones who have fully interrogated their internalized patriarchy and unlearned toxic masculinity will still say things like "I'm not going to use feminism as an excuse to be cheap and not pay for the date like I should."
What's going on here is quite similar to a D/s kink dynamic. I am pretending he has more power than me and he is pretending he has more power than me. We don't have to do this, but it's enjoyable. It's kinda hot in the same ways I find D/s kink dynamics hot. It's not secret that many men get off on feeling powerful, and specifically get off on feeling like they're more powerful than a woman. It's also no secret that straight women frequently get off on the inverse. Romance novels frequently focus on the ways that the male love interest is wealthy or physically powerful. He is larger, stronger, bigger. He's a cowboy who can lift you off your feet. He's a werewolf who can overpower you easily. He's the rich and powerful Christian Grey who can track your every movement and lock you up in his dungeon. Straight women get thirsty as hell for this.
This power dynamic is the assumed norm in normative heterosexual relationships. It's considered vanilla. Queer relationships do not default to having a power dynamic like this and if you introduce such a dynamic it is considered kinky. Going back to some decades ago, or to the present day in more conservative communities, this power dynamic is particularly pronounced. It is severe, violent, and profoundly non-consensual. It is, none-the-less, a power dynamic in the relationship. One party is submissive to the other, and this is sexualized.
I think that the reason Fifty Shades of Grey was so popular among straight women was not because it had a sexualized power dynamic but because for the first time it was a power dynamic that Anastasia has consented to. As problematic and unrealistic as the BDSM featured in Fifty Shades of Grey is at times, it is a fantasy about having control over the power exchange. Anastasia negotiates and chooses how much to submit. She chooses to submit even more, but it is something she is choosing. In every other heterosexual romance, the degree of submission is assumed by the man, it is taken, and it is expected. Even so, it is erotic for both parties. The books are marketed towards women.
Consensual or not, heterosexual relationship dynamics contain D/s. What is considered the most vanilla type of relationship is actually totally all about power exchange as the driving sexual force. The focus is not on completely "neutral" aspects of sex or romance but on the power differences.
If vanilla heterosexuality is about erotic exchange of power, and among more liberal or left-wing couples a perhaps quite consensual and knowing play-acting of such a power difference that does not necessarily exist, then how is it different from BDSM other than that it happens to be the more popular? With kinks not based around power, what differentiates a foot fetish from an attraction to large butts or large breasts? Popularity and normativity are linked.
I think this is why so many straight women do who participate in BDSM describe it as "liberatory" or "empowering." They are, for once in their life, choosing who to give power to and how much. They get to choose whether to be a top or a bottom in a relationship, which they normally never get to decide. So even if they do choose to be the bottom, that feels wonderful.
So when queer relationships engage in power play, how is it different from what heterosexuals do every single day? When I indulge a man in paying for my date and walking me home, how is it different from letting another trans woman tie me up with ropes? Among straight people, the latter is criticized as freakish and weird. Among queer people, the former is something to be criticized as playing into a patriarchal trope. For both of them, as far as I'm concerned, I am participating in a D/s scene. One of them is just more acceptable to do in public.
Kink doesn't need to be any more uncomfortable than the consensual pretend power exchange involved in modern coastal heterosexual relationships. The egalitarian straights generally try to minimize actual power dynamics and gender roles, but still play up power exchange when they have sex or want to flirt. That is literally no different than when queer people are normal day to day and then flirt by calling each other their pet puppy or whatever.
Heterosexuality is simply the most popular fetish. That is why it is vanilla. That is why it feels "safe." But your kink can feel safe too if you want it too. It's probably a lot safer than actual heterosexual relationships tend to be for men and women who never actually negotiate and verbally consent to the power dynamics they're acting out.