Probably no single piece of statistical information pertaining to BDSM is in as much conflict as the ratio of submissives to dominants. While most kinky people perceive there to be more bottoms than tops, a minority (8%) insist that the opposite is true, and a larger group (19%) think tops and bottoms are about equal in number. Kinky men are especially likely to believe that there are more bottoms. (Bienvenu and Jacques 1999)
These disagreements might be caused by at least two factors. First, kinky people's self-perceptions of how easily they can find a personally compatible partner is likely to influence their opinion about role ratios. Second, theorists or critics of kink who focusing on one role in particular may suggest that kink is typified by that role. A considerable amount of confusion has ensued in this regard, which I discuss here@.
Unfortunately, no general population survey has asked questions about kink roles. All of our information on this topic comes from purposive samples, with the heightened possibility of bias. Baumeister, for instance, finds a surprisingly high top/bottom ratio for letters written to magazines by heterosexuals. But perhaps people are more likely to write and publish erotic letters from a bottom's point of view; certainly this is in keeping with much of kink literature, as early as De Sade.
The chart below reviews the findings of the existing studies. Bienvenu and Jacques offered subjects five possible gradations from dominant to submissive. Moser and Levitt use seven. Where I've counted the intermediate stages as dominants or submissives, I've marked "(polar)". Where I've counted the intermediate stages as switches, I've marked "(non-polar)."
| Top | Bottom | Switch | Study | Group | Sample Size |
| 1 | 10 | Farley (1993) | Lesbians | 0 (Unsupported claim) | |
| 1 | 7.16 | 0.13 | Bienvenu and Jacques, (1999) | Females, (non-polar) | 565 |
| 1 | 4.65 | 0.86 | Bienvenu and Jacques, (1999) | Females, (polar) | 565 |
| 1 | 4.02 | 3.52 | Levitt et al. (1992) | Females | 45 |
| 1 | 3.66 | 1.66 | Baumeister (1988a) | Lesbians | 19 |
| 1 | 2.47 | Baumeister (1988a) | Heterosexuals | 222 | |
| 1 | 1.33 | 1.67 | Cross and Matheson (2006) | Females | 24 |
| 1 | 1.45 | 1.18 | Breslow et al. (In Levitt et al) | Females | 52 |
| 1 | 1.24 | 1.05 | Cross and Matheson (2006) | Males | 68 |
| 1 | 1.04 | 1.64 | Bienvenu and Jacques, (1999) | Males, (polar) | 487 |
| 1 | 1.01 | 0.28 | Moser and Levitt, (1987) | Males, (polar) | 187 |
| 1 | 0.63 | 0.36 | Bienvenu and Jacques, (1999) | Males, (non-polar) | 487 |
Based on the numbers above, we can make several general conclusions. First, bottoms almost always outnumber tops by at least a small margin. Second, this ratio is gendered, with women being considerably more apt to be bottoms, while men are about evenly likely to be tops or bottoms. Finally, tops and bottoms together usually outnumber switches, although this is sensitive to how we define "switch."
There is some evidence that this pattern may get stronger as people age. Following Hamilton (1929), it would seem that tops, and especially dominant women, often abandon their kink. It seems that very few submissive women do this. So perhaps at an early stage, these ratios are more even, and they succumb to various influences over time.
Updated 11/19/2009
Updated 11/19/2009
One curious thing to note is that for studies of females there seem to be some strong differences between studies.
ReplyDeleteBienvenue & Jacques, Levitt et al and Baumeister all indicate ratios of Top:Bottom in the region of 1:3 or 1:4
Breslow et al and Cross & Matheson are closer to 1:1.4 (which is similar to what the studies for men show as well).
Is there any obvious explanation for these discrepancies in the methodology or populations selected?
I am inclined to distrust Baumeister's methodology. B & J seem to have a strong "scene bias"--a large chunk of their sample is drawn from people who are directly involved with, or (I suspect) tangentially involved with BDSM organizations. It seems very plausible that BDSM organizations and businesses are predominatly M/f.
ReplyDeleteThe remaining studies, clearly, have such small n-values that we could reasonably ignore all of them.
Based on this profile, I would be surprised to find if the kink role ratio was lower for women than for men. But I think it's fair to say that at this point we don't know much about women in this respect.