About By Agreement and the research behind it

Research-informed educational content for adults. Evidence reviewed on 5 September 2026.

When you say, “I want you to take control,” you may have something very specific in mind. Perhaps you want relief from making decisions. Maybe obedience itself is pleasurable, or you want to feel intensely wanted. You might be looking for dependable structure, or for an erotic role that belongs to a particular encounter and ends with it.

Your partner can hear the same sentence and imagine something quite different.

By Agreement is designed to help you find those differences before they turn into assumptions. The questions invite you to talk about what your dynamic gives you, where authority starts and stops, how it changes in different situations, and what happens when one of you wants something to change.

The app draws on research about sexual communication, consent and BDSM, although the evidence varies considerably in strength. General relationship studies can tell us something about communication without telling us exactly how long-term D/s relationships work. Surveys of beliefs and attitudes tell us what participants report thinking, rather than what they will do in every situation. Some of the work discussed here is conceptual, offering ideas that still need further testing.

So think of these questions as research-informed conversation prompts. They have not been clinically validated, and no trial has shown that using them prevents consent violations. [1,3-6]

What research tells us about communication

Enjoying dominance, submission or BDSM is not, by itself, evidence of poor psychological health.

A 2013 online study compared 902 BDSM practitioners with 434 other participants using measures of personality, attachment, rejection sensitivity and well-being. On several measures, the BDSM group scored more favourably. Because participants selected themselves into the study, the findings cannot tell us whether BDSM improves well-being or whether any individual relationship is healthy. They do, however, add to the evidence against treating an interest in BDSM as a diagnosis in itself. [15]

There is much broader evidence linking sexual communication with relationship and sexual satisfaction. One meta-analysis brought together 93 studies involving 38,499 people in relationships. Sexual communication was moderately associated with relationship satisfaction, at around r = .37, and with sexual satisfaction, at around r = .43. The quality of communication showed a stronger association than simply communicating more often. [1]

Because those studies were correlational, the direction of influence remains uncertain. Good conversations may help relationships, satisfying relationships may make difficult conversations easier, and both processes may be happening at once.

Listening also matters.

In two diary studies, Laurenceau and colleagues found that intimacy was associated with self-disclosure, a partner's disclosure and the feeling that the other person had responded with understanding, validation and care. The research was about interpersonal intimacy generally rather than D/s negotiation, but the underlying point is relevant here: asking a revealing question is only part of the conversation. What happens after the answer matters too. [2]

If your partner gives an answer you hoped not to hear, try to understand it before trying to change it.

Consent conversations help, but they cannot carry everything

People within BDSM communities may be more accustomed to talking explicitly about consent.

A study of 388 participants, including 116 BDSM practitioners, found that BDSM participants saw explicit consent discussions as more normal and less disruptive to sexual interactions than the comparison group did. Interestingly, the groups were similar in how strongly they believed consent should be discussed. The main difference was in their expectations about what people actually do. [3]

Familiarity can change these habits.

Tarleton and colleagues asked 202 BDSM practitioners about consent practices with new partners and with established romantic partners. Participants generally supported careful consent practices, although they allowed more flexibility in established relationships. The study examined people's judgements about acceptable behaviour rather than observing what happened in their relationships. Even so, it raises a useful issue for couples who have been together for some time: permissions that were once discussed explicitly can gradually become assumptions. [4]

That may work perfectly well while both people still understand those assumptions in the same way. Trouble begins when an old understanding survives after somebody's preferences, circumstances or expectations have changed.

Clear communication also has limits when somebody simply disregards what was agreed.

In the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom's self-selected 2012 survey, 1,237 of 4,115 respondents answering one question reported that a pre-negotiated limit had been violated. That is 30.1%. In another item, 612 of 4,110 respondents, or 14.9%, said that a negotiated safeword or safesign had been ignored. The sample was self-selected and the categories overlap, so these figures should not be treated as estimates for everyone who practises BDSM. They do show that explicit agreements and stop signals can still be violated. [10]

If you and your partner misunderstand an agreement, talking more clearly may help. If one of you knowingly ignores the other's boundary, the problem is no longer a lack of wording.

Talk about authority, not only activities

In some D/s relationships, the central question is not simply which activities are allowed. One person may also have permission to make certain decisions for the other.

Casey and Sagarin use the term “Authority Transfer relationships” for this kind of arrangement in a 2025 conceptual paper. They discuss possible benefits such as structure and clearer roles, alongside possible difficulties including rigidity, exhaustion and abuse. Their paper proposes a framework and a research agenda. Whether its ideas predict outcomes in real relationships remains to be studied. [6]

When you use the cards, it can help to think separately about desire, willingness, agreement and authority.

You can enjoy imagining something without wanting to do it. You can willingly try an activity once without creating a standing arrangement. You can also agree to an activity while giving your partner discretion over only one part of it.

For example, you might be comfortable letting your partner decide when an agreed activity happens while still wanting intensity, location or frequency to remain separately agreed. The important thing is that both of you understand what has actually been handed over.

NCSF's statement on power exchange describes these relationships in terms of agreed behaviours, responsibilities and practices that can be discussed when the relationship begins and revisited over time. It includes relationships involving substantial delegated authority while retaining informed agreement and the ability to withdraw. Its discussion of law is specific to the United States and should not be assumed to apply elsewhere. [13]

If you are giving your partner authority in an area of your life, try to be concrete about what that covers. Think about exceptions, changing circumstances and how either of you would recognise that the arrangement needs to be reviewed.

The phrase “we know what we mean” becomes less important when both of you can actually explain what you mean.

A demanding commitment can still change

You may genuinely value a demanding agreement even when carrying it out is sometimes inconvenient, tiring or frustrating.

Someone who wants service, routine or structure is unlikely to enjoy every task equally. That ordinary reluctance can exist inside a sincerely chosen commitment. At the same time, your partner cannot reliably know from the outside whether you are experiencing routine reluctance or withdrawing your willingness altogether.

When that becomes unclear, the safest response is to stop and find out.

Research on 24/7 BDSM offers some useful examples. In a qualitative study, Cascalheira and colleagues described consent as something participants handled continuously and in context, using honesty, communication and flexible rules. Only four people took part, so the study gives us detailed personal accounts rather than a general model of 24/7 relationships. [5]

Those accounts are still worth considering. An ongoing dynamic can evolve without losing its meaning. Illness, work pressure, changing needs or a new understanding of yourself may all affect how an agreement works in practice.

When you revisit an agreement, the goal is not to prove that the relationship is progressing. More authority is not inherently more developed, and stricter rules are not inherently more committed. The useful question is whether the arrangement still works for the people living in it.

Make sure changing your mind is possible in real life

An agreement can say that either person is free to withdraw while everyday circumstances make that freedom difficult to use.

Consent researcher Kristen Jozkowski raised this issue in a 2026 commentary, arguing that revocability has psychological, social, emotional and material dimensions. A person may technically be free to challenge an arrangement while fearing consequences that make doing so much harder. Her article is a critical analysis rather than a study showing that this happens in every authority-transfer relationship. [7]

Harris, Overall and Morgenroth make a related argument in their critique of authority-transfer relationships. Drawing on research into hierarchy within relationships, they ask how role clarity, dependence, care and independence may interact, including whether some arrangements could make leaving more difficult. They also acknowledge the limits of applying those concerns across different genders and relationship structures. [8]

Read alongside Casey and Sagarin's original paper, the debate is a reminder to examine the relationship you actually have instead of relying on a general theory about hierarchy. [6]

For your own dynamic, think about what would happen if one of you wanted less power exchange.

Could you reduce or end part of the arrangement without first obtaining permission? Do you still have independent friendships and sources of practical support? If you hold authority, can you say that a responsibility is becoming too much for you? If you submit, can you admit that something you once wanted no longer feels right?

Sometimes changing preferences reveal a genuine incompatibility. A conversation cannot guarantee that a relationship will survive every answer. You should still be able to give an answer without having your immediate consent treated as the price of keeping the relationship.

Notice what your role makes hard to admit

Roles can shape the things people feel comfortable saying.

In an online qualitative study involving 231 participants, people described both benefits and difficulties around talking about consent. They expected communication to improve relationships and sexual experiences, while also describing difficult emotions, disruption and anxiety about how a partner might respond. These were participants' perceptions rather than measured results from a communication programme. [9]

D/s roles can add another layer.

If being a capable Dominant is important to your sense of yourself, you may find it surprisingly hard to admit that you feel uncertain, overwhelmed or unwilling to lead in a particular moment. If being a devoted submissive matters deeply to you, disappointment or resistance may feel difficult to express because you worry about seeming inadequate.

Those experiences are not universal. They are simply pressures worth looking for in yourself and in the way you respond to each other.

One of the more revealing things you can ask yourself is what you would find hardest to tell your partner. Then consider what your own reaction is likely to be when your partner says something you did not want to hear.

You also get to keep some things private. Honest communication does not require unrestricted disclosure.

Both people bring limits and responsibilities into a D/s relationship. A person who leads can become tired, uncertain or unsupported. A person who submits continues to have judgement, preferences and responsibilities of their own.

When something specific has gone wrong, keep your attention on what actually happened. General observations about both people's vulnerabilities should not blur responsibility for a particular boundary violation.

Do not try to read consent from someone's headspace

BDSM can produce intense psychological and biological experiences. Researchers have studied stress, reward, pain and hormonal responses, although the evidence remains limited.

A 2022 systematic review of the biology of BDSM included ten articles. Findings touched on several physiological systems, while the roles of testosterone and oxytocin remained especially unclear. The available research does not provide a biological marker that tells you whether somebody is consenting, capable of making a decision or safe to continue. [14]

A person may look deeply aroused, relaxed, euphoric, distant or absorbed. None of those states gives a partner reliable access to what they currently want.

NCSF's best-practice guidance recommends agreeing beforehand on what will happen, having an agreed way to stop and paying attention to anything that may interfere with consent. It also recommends avoiding mid-scene expansion of an agreement, except when someone is reducing or rejecting activities that were previously discussed. That approach comes from conservative community practice rather than an experiment identifying a universal point at which decision-making capacity disappears. [12]

By Agreement follows the same cautious approach. If you want to extend someone's authority, have that conversation outside the intense encounter. If you want to reduce or withdraw permission, you can do that immediately.

When your partner's willingness becomes unclear or reliable communication is lost, stop and check.

A safeword can be useful, but it is only one form of communication. Ordinary language, behaviour and changes in responsiveness also matter. The responsibility for noticing uncertainty does not belong solely to the person expected to say the safeword.

The cards focus on agreement and communication. They do not teach the physical safety of BDSM activities or provide technical instruction. Some activities require knowledge and skills that a conversation app cannot supply.

Aftercare, reflection and accountability may happen at different times

What you need immediately after an intense encounter may be very different from what you want to discuss a day later.

Aftercare is often understood as emotional or practical support after a scene. It can also involve how people make sense of themselves and their role. Mercer interviewed 40 US practitioners who topped or took a dominant role. Their accounts suggested that aftercare sometimes included managing how they were seen by partners, by the community and by themselves. The study appeared online in 2024 and later in a 2026 journal issue. [11]

This does not make aftercare insincere. It does suggest that different needs can become mixed together.

You might want closeness, water, food, space or reassurance immediately afterwards. Later, once the intensity has passed, you may have a clearer sense of what you enjoyed, disliked or still do not understand. If something went wrong, a further conversation may be needed about responsibility and what happens next.

Those conversations do not have to occur at the same time.

Feeling affectionate afterwards tells you how someone felt afterwards. It cannot settle every question about what happened earlier. Someone may accept comfort and still be angry. They may initially describe an encounter positively and later realise that part of it troubled them.

If a boundary was crossed, try to talk specifically about the event. What happened? What effects did it have? Is there any authority or activity that should be paused? What would need to change before either person considered returning to it?

Repair is not an obligation. An apology can matter greatly without entitling the person who apologised to renewed intimacy, trust or authority.

Sometimes a joint conversation is the wrong place to start

By Agreement is made for conversations that both people can enter voluntarily.

If you expect punishment, threats, outing, retaliation or the possibility that your answers will later be used against you, a joint card exercise may make things worse. Private support from somebody you trust, or from an appropriately qualified kink-aware professional, may be more useful.

If you are in immediate danger, seek emergency help rather than trying to solve the situation through the app.

This boundary is about the circumstances around the conversation, not about judging D/s itself. You can value dominance, submission, power exchange and your community while also recognising that a particular relationship is hurting you.

You do not need to persuade your partner to share your interpretation before you step away from something. You also do not owe a perfect explanation or a completed repair process before deciding that you no longer want to participate.

Using the questions

Choose the level together. Either of you can stop individually.

The levels describe how vulnerable or difficult a conversation may feel. They are not a measure of how experienced you are, how legitimate your relationship is, whether you are compatible or whether you are ready for more intense BDSM.

Answer from your own perspective. “I don't know,” “not applicable,” “I want to think about that privately” and “I don't want to share this” are all complete answers.

When your partner tells you something difficult, try first to say back what you think you heard. Give them the chance to correct you before you move into explanation, reassurance or problem-solving. This is a suggested conversation practice rather than a technique that has been specifically validated for these decks.

If your answers differ, leave the difference visible. You do not have to manufacture a middle position when one person wants an activity and the other does not.

Answering a card also does not create permission for an activity. What somebody wants now takes priority over what they wrote or said in an earlier conversation.

Within the app, role-based authority never includes forcing somebody to answer a question or punishing them for the answer they give.

Some cards may help you reach a clearer agreement. Others may uncover uncertainty, incompatibility or a wish to change something you had previously taken for granted. That information is useful because it gives each of you a more accurate picture of the relationship you are actually choosing.

The aim is for you to understand the dynamic well enough to keep making that choice consciously. You may decide you want more power exchange, less of it, a different version of it, or none at all.

---

Where the Connection Core deck comes from

By Agreement also carries a general connection deck, built on a separate and older line of research: gradual, reciprocal self-disclosure can increase immediate feelings of closeness, particularly when what is shared is met with understanding, validation, care and a relevant follow-up question.

> gradual and voluntary self-disclosure -> perceived responsiveness -> feeling understood, accepted and cared for -> greater perceived closeness

Arthur Aron and colleagues' Fast Friends studies found that pairs who answered gradually more personal questions felt closer than pairs who made small talk, and later work has reported similar effects face to face and by video. Meta-analytic research links self-disclosure to liking, but context matters: disclosure that is premature or poorly received can reduce trust rather than build it.

That is why depth is arranged in three levels, why each person sets their own maximum level, and why a pass is always a complete answer. The same logic governs the power-exchange decks: a revealing question is only useful when an unwelcome answer is allowed to stand.

The full citations for this older material are listed underneath this article.

Limits of the evidence

The research supports immediate perceived closeness in structured conversations reasonably well. It says much less about long-term effects, about groups with several listeners, or about the wording of any individual question. By Agreement has not been validated as a clinical or relationship intervention. The accurate description is research-informed, not scientifically proven.

References\n\nPublication years below follow journal issue dates where available; online-first dates are noted when they differ. These references support the explanatory text, not a claim that the individual cards or the app have been validated.\n\n[1] Mallory, A. B. (2022; online 2021). Dimensions of couples' sexual communication, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Family Psychology, 36*(3), 358–371. DOI: [10.1037/fam0000946](https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000946). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34968095/). Meta-analysis; predominantly associational evidence, not D/s-specific intervention research.\n\n[2] Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74*(5), 1238–1251. DOI: [10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9599440/). Two event-contingent diary studies; applying this to D/s is an extrapolation.\n\n[3] Harris, E. A., Morgenroth, T., Crone, D. L., Morgenroth, L., Gee, I., & Pan, H. (2024; online 2023). Sexual consent norms in a sexually diverse sample. *Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53*, 577–592. DOI: [10.1007/s10508-023-02741-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02741-0). [Open full text](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02741-0). Comparative survey of perceived norms; not a direct behavioural observation.\n\n[4] Tarleton, H. L., Mackenzie, T., & Sagarin, B. J. (2025; online 2024). Consent norms in the BDSM community: Strong but not inflexible. *Archives of Sexual Behavior, 54*(2), 549–559. DOI: [10.1007/s10508-024-03038-6](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03038-6). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39576567/). Context-based consent acceptability judgements, N = 202; not a study of incident rates.\n\n[5] Cascalheira, C. J., Thomson, A., & Wignall, L. (2022; online 2021). 'A certain evolution': A phenomenological study of 24/7 BDSM and negotiating consent. *Psychology & Sexuality, 13*(3), 628–639. DOI: [10.1080/19419899.2021.1901771](https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1901771). [Author manuscript](https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/35246/3/247%20BDSM%20Upload.pdf). Four participants; rich qualitative accounts, not representative estimates.\n\n[6] Casey, K. G., & Sagarin, B. J. (2025). Authority transfer relationships: Illuminating a consensual inegalitarian relationship form. *Archives of Sexual Behavior*, advance online publication. DOI: [10.1007/s10508-025-03240-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03240-0). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41162821/). Conceptual target article; proposed benefits and costs must not be presented as established outcome effects.\n\n[7] Jozkowski, K. N. (2026). Interrogating authority transfer relationships from a consent lens. *Archives of Sexual Behavior*. DOI: [10.1007/s10508-026-03456-8](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-026-03456-8). [Open full text](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-026-03456-8). Commentary published 27 May 2026; analysis of revocability and structural constraints, not a new D/s outcome study.\n\n[8] Harris, E. A., Overall, N. C., & Morgenroth, T. (2026). The hidden costs of authority transfer relationships. *Archives of Sexual Behavior*. DOI: [10.1007/s10508-025-03402-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03402-0). [Open full text](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03402-0). Commentary published 25 February 2026; extrapolations from adjacent research require caution.\n\n[9] Edwards, J., Rehman, U. S., & Byers, E. S. (2022). Perceived barriers and rewards to sexual consent communication: A qualitative analysis. *Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39*(8), 2408–2434. DOI: [10.1177/02654075221080744](https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221080744). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35872976/). Online qualitative study, N = 231; reports perceived costs and benefits rather than intervention effects.\n\n[10] National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. (2012 survey; report undated). *NCSF Consent Counts Survey*. Report by Susan Wright and Judy Guerin; data analysis by Chelsea Heaven. [Original report](https://ncsfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Consent-Counts-survey.pdf). Historical self-selected online survey, N = 5,667 overall; denominators vary by item. The upload path is not the study date. Figures quoted in the article are on report page 5.\n\n[11] Mercer, K. H. (2026; online 2024). How was that for you?: Gender, aftercare and impression management in BDSM. *The Journal of Sex Research, 63*(3), 401–411. DOI: [10.1080/00224499.2024.2410338](https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2410338). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39360893/). Forty interviews with US practitioners who top; findings should not be generalised to everybody's aftercare or treated as an efficacy trial.\n\n[12] National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. (n.d.). *Best practices for consent to kink*. [Guidance](https://ncsfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Best-Practices-for-Consent-to-Kink.pdf). Community guidance; includes US legal material that this app does not generalise internationally.\n\n[13] National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. (n.d.). *NCSF statement on power exchange relationships*. [Statement](https://ncsfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Power-Exchange-Statement.pdf). Community position statement; US legal discussion is jurisdiction-specific.\n\n[14] Wuyts, E., & Morrens, M. (2022). The biology of BDSM: A systematic review. *The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 19*(1), 144–157. DOI: [10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.11.002](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.11.002). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34876387/). Ten included articles; a limited biological literature, not a test of consent capacity or app outcomes.\n\n[15] Wismeijer, A. A. J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2013). Psychological characteristics of BDSM practitioners. *The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10*(8), 1943–1952. DOI: [10.1111/jsm.12192](https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12192). [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23679066/). Self-selected online comparison, 902 practitioners and 434 controls; no causal inference about BDSM and psychological health.\n