submission is not a gift. It’s an Investment

The idea that "submission is a gift” has always felt… off. Not because submission isn’t valuable, but because gifts are given freely, without expectation. Authority Transfer, however, is not a one-sided act of charity—it’s an investment.

Investment requires risk. It requires commitment. It requires placing something of value into another’s hands with the understanding that what is built together will be greater than what either could hold alone. That is what submission is—a deliberate transfer, not a temporary offering.

When we frame submission as something “given,” we create a loophole—a way to take it back the moment it becomes inconvenient. It’s not lent out like a favor or held onto with conditions. It’s either invested fully, or it’s not at all.

If a submissive sees themselves as the one “allowing” power, they’re still managing it. That’s not submission. That’s delegation. If someone wants to retain control over who holds power, maybe submission isn’t their path. Maybe they should explore dominance instead.

Authority Transfer is not passive. It has structure, weight, and responsibility on both sides. And it thrives within its own framework. If we bend it too much to fit a more palatable narrative, at what point does it stop being what it claims to be?

This isn’t about dismissing different dynamics. It’s about clarity. Some things are meant to hold their shape.