Category: Uncategorized

Working as a dominatrix taught me profound lessons about what it means to feel safe. The foundation of that safety lies in the deliberate control I hold over every interaction with a client. It begins with the initial consultation, where needs and desires are clearly expressed, firm boundaries are established, and a safe word is mutually agreed upon. This structured process creates a container of consent and accountability that is often absent in everyday life.

BDSM is far more than the surface imagery of latex, gags, ropes, and whips; it is a practice of deliberately embracing the darker aspects of human nature with intentional love and radical acceptance. In that carefully curated space, both parties are invited to acknowledge the impulses, desires, and shadows that everyday life often demands they hide. Rather than suppressing those elements, the work frames them as valid parts of the self that can be met with compassion and respect. Through this process, what society frequently labels as taboo becomes an opportunity for honesty, healing, and a deeper sense of wholeness—demonstrating that true acceptance includes the parts of us we have been taught to fear.

Many of the individuals I worked with occupied positions of significant authority outside the dungeon—judges, police officers, CEOs, doctors, attorneys, political figures, and even husbands. In their professional and personal worlds they were expected to lead, decide, and maintain control. Inside the dungeon, they sought the opposite: the freedom to surrender, to express the parts of themselves that daily life required them to suppress. In those spaces, the shadows became places of liberation from shame rather than concealment. There, people could be fully themselves without fear of judgment, and in that authenticity they often found a rare form of safety, freedom, and acceptance.

I, too, encountered my own shadows in this work. There was gratification in the structured exercise of control and the carefully bounded intensity that accompanied it. This stood in stark contrast to earlier experiences in which I had been harmed by men who were supposed to protect and respect me. In those situations I felt my body treated as something possessed by others, and I lost any sense of agency over my own safety. The power dynamics of the dungeon reversed that feeling. The sour residue of powerlessness began to dissipate. In its place grew a sense of restored control and, for both myself and many clients, a measure of healing.

Dominatrices are frequently viewed with suspicion or moral disapproval by those who keep their own fantasies tightly suppressed. I suspect that perception would shift for many if they ever allowed themselves the experience of structured release—even behind closed doors in a carefully managed space. What appears transgressive from the outside can, when practiced with rigorous consent and clear boundaries, become a site of psychological relief, mutual respect, and unexpected safety.

The work revealed that true safety is not the intensity or power exchange, but the presence of transparent agreement, mutual accountability, and the freedom to inhabit one’s full self without fear. In the controlled environment of the dungeon, both dominant and submissive can discover that the shadows are not places of shame. Sometimes they are the only places where authenticity, agency, and healing can fully emerge.

Family court is often portrayed as a place where children's best interests come first. In my experience, it became a years-long battle marked by procedural irregularities, repeated scrutiny of my mental health without basis, and what felt like systemic bias. What began as a petition for protection and enforcement of existing orders turned into a long ordeal that tested my resilience and left lasting emotional scars.

The Background: Establishing Custody and Early Concerns

My son's custody was initially set in New York's Suffolk County Family Court with joint legal and physical custody orders first established on March 2011 and Modified on May 2012. On November 2018, after ongoing verbal harassment and safety concerns, I filed petitions in Kings County Family Court: one for an order of protection and another to enforce the existing custody terms. Months later, on September 2019, my son's father sought modification for sole custody after his attorney insisted he does so.

Entering the Courtroom: 

An Alarming First Encounter Before my initial conference in Part 50, I witnessed something unsettling. A visibly distraught woman exited the same conference room, arm in a cast and in tears. She warned me about the attorney-referee handling cases, alleging bias, and failure to protect women from domestic abuse. The court reporter quickly ushered me inside when she noticed the woman in front of me. This moment set a tone of uneasiness that persisted throughout the 5-year-long court case. In March 2019, during my first appearance (self-represented at the time), I agreed to have the case heard by an attorney-referee named Jamila Asha Cha-Jua Lee. I detailed my fears, supported by legal reports and my son's attorney at the time, who confirmed multiple attacks he had witnessed. Instead of addressing the abuse history which includes assault in the 3rd degree, the referee abruptly unwarrantably questioned my mental health without evidence and ordered a psychiatric evaluation and ACS (Administration for Children's Services) investigation to be conducted. Both cleared me: ACS found no neglect, and the evaluator saw no mental health issues impacting my parenting. 

Escalating Scrutiny and Shifting Custody: 

Despite these clearances, accusations persisted. My son's attorney Rosa Astuto (who was then suddenly promoted to a higher position after this defamatory claim) also later alleged that my son's pediatrician reported him "underweight” during a yearly physical. My son’s pediatrician denied in writing having ever made such claims. Yet, this false accusation by Ms. Astuto led to a second ACS investigation against me, a second psychiatric evaluation, and a temporary order for my son to live primarily with his father who was living about 30 miles away from our son’s school (later reversed after I provided the pediatrician’s note and a yearly physical form from the year in question). Despite proving that my son was never neglected once again, the defamatory patterns continued: repeated mental health targeting, unwarranted questions about my religion and diet that were unrelated to parenting, and ignored any safety and abuse concerns that were expressed by me. 

Pandemic Challenges and Safety Worries: 

In 2020, amid COVID-19, I sought to pause visits to protect my son's health (given vulnerabilities in the father's household). The court instead ordered alternating weeks, disrupting routines. Schoolwork suffered during his time there, but blame shifted to me. One weekend, the father left our son with relatives while traveling. The grandfather was heavily intoxicated during calls, raising alarms about supervision—especially during a power outage. Concerned for my son's safety, I requested a police wellness check and later reported to ACS. ACS noted access issues and refused drug tests by the father and grandfather. The court responded by prohibiting such reports, threatening mental health scrutiny and custody changes if I continued. 

Concerns were dismissed; no inquiry with my son occurred. Ongoing Harassment and Perceived Bias. Court appearances involved intimidation from opposing counsel—yelling, glaring, personal chats with the referee post-conference—creating a hostile environment. Offers for mediation, co-parenting counseling, or apps were rejected; the stance was sole custody or nothing. Forensic psychiatric evaluations were ordered (initially only on me, later both parties), despite no evidence. Police reports were misused and framed by unanimous callers to claim I made unwarranted calls (reports didn't identify me). My attorneys sometimes hesitated to challenge bias, citing potential backlash.

The Outcome and Reflections: 

The case dragged on until March 2023, when sole custody was awarded to the father—on a day I missed due to health issues. Absences by opposing counsel went unpunished, while mine were highlighted. This experience highlighted what many protective parents face: disproportionate scrutiny, ignored evidence of concern, and decisions that disrupt children's stability. It wasn't just about one case; it felt like a system where allegations against mothers are amplified, while fathers' issues minimized. 

I'm sharing this not for vengeance, but to raise awareness. Family court should prioritize verifiable facts, child safety, and fairness. If you're navigating something similar, document meticulously, seek support, and know you're not alone. Reform is needed so no child—or parent—endures unnecessary trauma.