Power Dynamics

Dearest Rachel –

So today had me waking up not with a dream as such (although I guess there were some images involved that illustrated my thought process, but stringing them together would be more trouble than it’s worth, for several reasons), but rather an insight of sorts. To be sure, it’s not an apple-on-the-head revelation by any means – I’m sure others have come up with this, and been able to explain it in more detail – but it’s not the sort of issue most people dwell on much; in part because it doesn’t much pertain to them, but also because they wouldn’t want to think about it.

A little background here, and I’m going to do my best to not name names or go into detail; after all, the conclusion I arrived at doesn’t just pertain to the things that have or have not made the news. This is a situation that applies in nearly all relationships to a greater or lesser extent. It just seems to need more explanation when it’s something like this that involves the potential downfall of the rich and famous.

It starts with a situation involving a major money man, and his fellow money men in Washington (which I will point out that more than one wag has referred to as “Hollywood for ugly people.” I don’t if you’d consider this important, as such, but it will connect to the second scenario thus). You were still around when he was taken into custody for certain, let’s just say, unsavory practices that he was not only enjoying, but allowing his many wealthy and powerful friends to enjoy on his dime. While incarcerated, he expired under mysterious circumstances; some would argue this was to keep him from taking his former friends – who were, by dint of being ‘clients’ of his, were every bit as culpable of these certain behaviors as he was – down with him.

On a seemingly unrelated note, since your departure, a major player in the entertainment and music industry has likewise been arrested for similar activities. Unlike the former individual, he did not own any private islands for him and his friends to play on, beyond the reach of national laws; he simply gave good party in the middle of the city, where you weren’t an A-list celebrity if you hadn’t had the chance to attend. But apparently, in the back rooms of his mansion, there were things going on that were a little beyond the acceptable limit of what it means to have a good time. This individual still lives, but has been placed on ‘suicide’ watch, just in case.

I mention this because there has been some chatter about the possible release of names having to do with either of these individuals, and that this declassification process might lay waste to the populations of both Washington and Hollywood, respectively. Indeed, our son Daniel seems to be of the belief that virtually everyone who is anyone in either of these towns is implicated in one or the other of these ‘gentlemen’ (to use the word as facetiously as possible). Personally, I doubt it’s nearly as widespread as he seems to think; and even if it was, the fact that a certain type of behavior is so common as to be nearly universal practically normalizes it, doesn’t it? And how would it ruin these people for the world to know, when they have the power to decide what is or isn’t criminal (or what is or isn’t covered in the media)?

But what really puzzles me is why people with that kind of money, fame and power would engage in such a risky behavior in the first place. Where’s the percentage in all this? And what I woke up to this morning was the realization that the power dynamic involved is where the appeal lies.

To be sure, in every relationship, there is a power dynamic. No two people are equal between themselves, be it physically, financially, intellectually, socially or whatever. In every pairing, someone has more power or ability, and the other has less. Often, the imbalance is minimal, and in many cases, one has strengths in one arena while the other excels in other fields, balancing them out. This means that these relationships require a certain amount of give and take, of conceding here to gain ground there; no one gets everything they want, but both should get enough to be happy together. I’d like to think we had that kind of relationship, honey, and I’ll touch on that more further along.

Some people, however, seem to never have ‘enough,’ though. They want to always get their way, to always call the shots. But in order to do that, they need to have all the power in the relationship. That’s where this kind of relationship appeals to them (and why we as a society consider such to be so repugnant, along with other things). Consider how it works:

Let’s start by covering the most obvious, and most obviously repellent, aspect of these sorts of relationships; the fact that the ‘john’ is considerably older than his paramour for the evening – although, to be sure, the truly repellent part isn’t so much the age difference as it is just how young the paramour is, at least from a legal perspective. The thought going through the john’s mind – and this is what I woke up realizing – goes something along the lines of “I can get this person to do anything I want them to, simply because I say so. I am older and wiser, and know what’s good.” Those last five words are a lie they tell themselves, but given that the rest of that is true, the leap of logic being made is understandable.

Less commonly used in these two particular cases – but surely not unusual in far too many relationships, licit or not – is the most literal form of power, that of physical strength; “I can get this person to do anything I want them to, simply because I’m bigger and stronger. If they refuse, I can (and will) break them in half.” It’s nearly as repugnant as the first – sometimes even more so, given the threat of violence inherent in it that the first doesn’t explicitly carry.

But literal violence isn’t the only means by which one can assert dominance over another. There is a certain soft power by which one can “break” another into doing their will all the time, every time. This might be considered to be the “It’s good to be the king” power dynamic; where one person is so powerful (albeit not physically so) the other is helpless before them. Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” and while I’d have had difficulty considering him attractive personally, I’m sure plenty of people would have been willing to agree – and prove his assertion accurate – for the sake of what he could do for them (or what he could prevent from happening to them). And bear in mind, some of the people who might be implicated in all this are much more appealing, in the looks department, than Dr. Kissinger – especially seeing that he’s been dead for a year or so now. I doubt you’ve seen him where you are, though.

Of course, star power and political power are one thing, but even if those hold no attraction, there is always the power of money. Once again, the john thinks “I can get this person to do anything I want them to; I paid for their services, I’m a customer, and the customer is always right.” Absent a moral compass saying otherwise, this is an understandable conclusion to reach. It applies a crude transactional aspect to matters of the heart or further south, to be sure, but it’s also not an uncommon perspective in our society. There are guys who think they are ‘owed’ certain favors simply for paying for a dinner and a night out – and it may explain certain women who insist on paying their own way, to avoid being trapped by this power dynamic cheat code that some (mostly men) think it to be.

The thing is, none of these power cheats can make a person truly have feelings for another, any more so than a genie’s wish. A pretense can be made, and it may be thoroughly convincing, but when there’s such an imbalance in the power dynamic, who’s to say the behavior of the one in the submissive role is doing it from a sense of duty, out of fear, is starstruck or hoping for some kind of eventual quid pro quo as opposed to actual love or affection? And if it is out of any of these motives, how could they enjoy themselves when in the midst of it all? Between you and I, it was important to me that you were happy as much as possible, and I know there were times you did things specifically because I enjoyed them, and not for your own sake.

Then again, it wouldn’t necessarily concern the dominant partner if their playmate were enjoying themselves, but that same question ought to nag at the back of their minds as well. If the affection being showered upon them isn’t genuine, how can that be enjoyed? This is where I part company with the rich, famous and powerful that engage in this sort of thing; while I understand their exercise of power being a turn-on to both themselves and their hired companions, the fact that both parties are aware that it’s all fake seems to render it all pointless, and I can’t grasp why that would appeal to anyone.

Maybe I just have to work on being a bit more shallow and narcissistic before I can understand it all. On the other hand, do I really want to be like that, just to comprehend the mindset of such reprehensible folks? Yeah, I’ll pass.

In any event, it’s not a thing you need concern yourself with, but I had to get off my chest today. Thanks for bearing with me. Until later, keep an eye on me, and wish me luck, as I’m likely to need it yet.