Kink Research Overviews

The Subjective Experience of Pornographic Images

2011-02-25T10:02:00.000-08:00

With the utmost appreciation to the participants in this survey...

INDEX

Introduction

The Survey Instrument

The Survey Population

RESPONSES TO THE IMAGES

Overall evaluations: Sexy vs. Disturbing

Reasons for Disturbance

Ambiguous Readings

Ambiguous Readings: Gender

Ambiguous Readings: Power Roles

Ambiguous Readings: Attitudes

Role in the Narrative

Not There / No role Mentioned
Jumping the Frame (JtF)
Basic Surrogacy
Personalization
Complex Surrogacy
Off-stage Roles
Marginal Roles and Meta-fantasy
Unclear (JtF or Simple Surrogacy)
Split Surrogacy
Other

Other Thematic Content of Narratives

Incorporation of Lovers
Coercion and Consent
Salvation Fantasies

Conclusion

Areas for Further Research

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960s, scholars, activists, and congressional committees have compiled a large, polemic, and yet fairly inconclusive literature on pornography. The bulk of this scholarship, both empirical and theoretical, focuses on two distinct arenas of disagreement. First, there is the question of the behavioral effects of pornography on its audience. Second, and independently, there are ethical questions around the production and use of pornography, or around censoring it in a society that values free speech.

It would be hard to overstate the degree to which these arguments are polarized between explicitly self-identified critics and defenders of pornography. Nevertheless, both critics and defenders of pornography have typically agreed on the subjective mental experience of the pornographic consumer. That is to say, it has generally been assumed that pornography was used by heterosexual men who inserted themselves, directly or indirectly, into a fantasy of heterosexual male domination indicated by the pornographic image. This assumption is generally referenced as the “male gaze,” a term loosely derived from Laura Mulvey's 1973 paper Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.

Visual Pleasure actually used the term “male look” and was focused not on pornography per se but on a Freudian and Lacanian reading of cinema. Mulvey's argued that the sexualized female figure in films is generally presented for the pleasure of heterosexual men, and sexualized male figures are presented as "surrogates" for the male viewer. Both of these versions of the gaze help alleviate male castration anxiety.

Mulvey cautioned that "this complex interaction of looks is specific to film," but the terminology has been adopted and simplified to analyze more static texts, and especially to analyze and critique pornography. The term does not seem to be especially common in recent scholarship. Garrity has described the “male gaze” as a useful cliché, and Paglia (1998) has called on Mulvey to retract or clarify her original thesis, quoting Mulvey herself as saying Visual Pleasures was written “polemically and without regard for context or nuances of argument.”

Nevertheless, the idea of the male gaze is commonplace in popular feminist writing, where it serves as shorthand for an ostensibly thorough-going analysis of the embodied motivations and prejudices of all kinds of images, not simply film. The crucial components of the gaze, in this version, are the inevitable subordination of the female subject to the male viewer, and the use of male subjects as surrogates for the male viewer to relay their subordinating and misogynistic perspective.

The most immediate challenges to this conception have been the existence of a female and queer audience for pornography, as well as pornographic images that portray explicitly dominant (and thus, plausibly, non-subordinated) female figures. These categorical challenges have generally been ignored, and discussions of pornography have often taken pains to define them as irrelevant or marginal. Most broadly, since the mid-20^th century there has been a shift in usage by legislators and activists towards a consensus that writing is not pornographic. This removes at a stroke the largest and oldest corpus of pornography aimed at a female audience: the romance novel.

A few authors (e.g. Jeffreys 1990) have addressed these challenges to the assumption of the male gaze more directly, arguing in effect that the narrative of misogyny is so deeply embedded in pornography as a medium that it asserts itself in spite of the image's objective contents.

Throughout this literature, though, there is very little inquiry into the subjective expereince of pornography. Researchers have measured the effect of pornography on penile engorgement and heart rate and political opinions and indices of sexism and so forth, but they have rarely ever asked the subjects to describe the pornography itself. In the few studies that do provide information about subjective experience, it tends to be auxiliary to the main purpose of the study. But these are revealing all the same.

At least three studies (Kant 1971; Rachman and Hodgson 1968; Marshall 1988) have noted in passing that participants tend to re-interpret the content of the pornography they use or were shown. Kant and Marshall both noted that sex offenders of various categories in his study did not have a history of exposure to, or current preference for, pornography with content reflecting the nature of their sex offenses. (Kant's 1971 study seems to have been expanded and republished several times.) Marshall describes how rapists, in interviews, often preferred pornography depicting consensual sex, which they might then re-interpret as a rape fantasy. Rachman and Hodgson noted that their subjects described sexual fantasies that were not consistent with the content of the pornography they were being shown.

While these findings have been ancillary to the studies they appeared in, they raise larger questions about the subjective experience of pornography. This study was designed to address those questions.

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

In October of 2010, I conducted a survey using a Tumblr website, and aimed primarily at people who already viewed pornographic Tumblr websites. I selected 70 images, mainly from Tumblr accounts, with the aim of creating a relatively diverse selection of objective content, within a single medium (still photography), and a fairly consistent level of photographic style. Several standard pinup photos were also taken from Playboy and Playgirl, respectively: all the other images were 21^st century. I avoided images that seemed dated (as estimated by hairstyles, clothing, and photo quality). I tried to select images with models that had some degree of racial diversity, but were otherwise fairly typical of the body types and age range of models in mainstream pornography. In general, I aimed to minimize the variability between images to the themes I was considering: gender, activity, and D/s content.

I focused on themes of oral, anal and vaginal intercourse, nudity, exposure, bondage, and light to moderate sadomasochistic acts. Within those parameters, I selected a number of images that were ambiguous either in terms of the activity or the gender of the models. I avoided photos that had a thematic focus on other fetishes, such as animal role-play, uniforms, urine play, or the like. I also avoided distinctly transexual models. While these themes would all have been very interesting to incorporate, they would have increased the size of the survey to an untenable degree.

To the best of my ability, I removed website names and other text, as well as URLs, so as not to prejudice the viewer with information they might infer or know based on the source of the image. This was not entirely effective. Three respondents mentioned that they identified one of the models (Faye

Reagan) and one respondent identified the production company of another image.

The respondents were asked to provide basic demographic information, using an open-ended question format. They were asked whether or not they identified as feminists, and asked two questions to form an index of propensity for sexual violence.

The images were arranged into groups, each of which had thematically similar content, but varied by the genders of the models. They were then randomized. Participants were instructed to find five or more images that they had a “fairly strong reaction to” if possible. They were then given the following instructions:

-Note if you find the image “sexy,” “disturbing,” “both,” or “neither.”

-Describe in two to three sentences what you imagine or fantasize to be happening in this image.

-If you imagine yourself being in the image, or being in the story you have outlined above, explain who it is you imagine yourself to be. Otherwise, write “I'm not there.”

The Survey Population

The survey was advertised largely on pornographic Tumblr sites, so it can be presumed that the population is self-selected for exposure to pornography. It is especially noteworthy to have a sample of female respondents who regularly use pornography, since there is relatively little information about this group.

I received responses from 96 people, who collectively provided 929 evaluations of images. Respondents were asked to answer a series of preliminary questions, all open-ended, providing us with a profile of the respondents.

There were two transmen, two men who identifed as genderqueer males, and one woman who qualified her response as female. Noting this, I have collapsed the gender information into a binary format for the rest of the survey: 44 women and 52 men.

For formatting reasons, the demographic statistics for this population will be linked on a separate page**.

I categorized pornography use as low (weekly or less), high (daily or more), or intermediate. In passing, I should note that six men (12%) and 16 women (32%) who looked at porn daily (or more often) offered some type of explanation for this. The most common justifications were that the pornography they used was of an unusually acceptable variety, that they liked to view pornography but did not find it arousing, or that they did not seek out pornography, but it happened to be on websites they liked to visit. In all events, it seems safe to conclude that even in this population, women attach more stigma to viewing pornography than men do, and feel a greater need to justify their behavior.

Following a number of previous studies, I asked two questions on the survey with the hope of generating a measure of propensity to sexual violence. Unfortunately, given the small sample size, I had too few positive results to utilize in this analysis. The question did glean some results that might be worth pursuing. A number of respondents who identified themselves as kinky answered yes to questions about having pressured or coerced someone into a sex act, but qualified their answer by saying they had done so within a consensual framework. Unless we agree a priori that consensual BDSM is equivalent to rape or other sexual violence, these yes answers are misleading. Yet there is a distinct possibility that they affect the results of surveys and inventories that do not allow open-ended questions.

RESPONSES TO THE IMAGES

Overall evaluations: Sexy vs. Disturbing

Of all the images evaluated, 65% were seen as sexy, 8% as disturbing, 22% as neither, 3% as both, and 2% as other. There were no significant differences by gender, though women who reported low pornography usage were somewhat more likely to rate images as disturbing. Most of the respondents were quite familiar with pornography, and seven of them volunteered that they did not find any of the images disturbing, often citing their experience of pornography with much more extreme content. A number of other respondents commented that individual images, or the whole collection of images, became less disturbing and more sexy over time.

All of this suggests that the evaluation of pornography is influenced by familiarity with pornography as a genre. One respondent, a 31-year-old woman who uses pornography weekly, categorized image #57 as “some BDSM stuff”: neither sexy nor disturbing. It seems likely that someone less familiar with the tropes and themes of BDSM pornography would be more apt to find the image disturbing. This calls into question findings based on samples of people (typically women) with little prior experience of pornography, whose responses might be viewed as a first impression. For instance, Senn and Radtke (1986) use such a sample to argue that women can distinguish consistently between erotic and disturbing images.

Notably, no such consistent discrimination appears in this survey. Every image was rated as sexy at least once. Just over half the images (37) were also rated as disturbing. Moreover, there was not a continuum between images more likely to be rated as sexy and those more likely to be rated as disturbing. In fact, there was a slight positive correlation between those evaluations (r = 0.11). Two images (#1 and #40) were rated in the top tier in both categories. Notably, gender was not a significant factor in determining whether people found these images sexy or disturbing.

At the same time, the 33 images that no respondent considered disturbing were also ranked as sexy much less frequently. Of the nine lowest-ranked images for sexiness, six were also not rated as disturbing by any respondent. (These were #30, #34, #43, #46, #61, and #68. Two of these images, interestingly, are traditional Playboy nudes: this iconic genre of pornography had little interest for the respondents, with the exception of older heterosexual males.

The images considered sexy by the highest number of respondents were #3 and #32, both of them depicting heterosexual sex acts with a fairly close focus on the woman's face.

Taken together, this suggests that viewers with some experience of pornography consistently categorize images as having more or less impact, with high-impact images being regarded as either sexy, disturbing, or both.

Reasons for Disturbance

The most common reasons that respondents gave for disturbance with given images were dislike for a model's appearance; discomfort with gay and lesbian themes; a sense that the image was stereotypical; concern about whether the model was enjoying the experience; and concern about whether the model was underage. These cut across both genders without significant variation.

There were two major differences by the respondent's gender. Men were significantly more likely to be disturbed by homosexual themes, and often construed solo male images as homosexual per se. Moreover, men were much more specific, and much more varied, in being disturbed by the models' appearances. Women tended to complain about female models being stereotypical or “porny” (sic) and male models having too much body hair. Men had a much wider range of complaints, including breast size, implants, body hair and lack of body hair. Men were equally critical of male bodies, perhaps in part because of the concern about homosexuality. One 55-year old male respondent wrote: “Fit young men are generally disturbing to overweight middle-aged men like me.” Another man complained that the penis in image #52 was too large; a third man questioned whether the penis in image #21 is real. Still other comments focused on musculature; one respondent argued that the shape of a model's buttocks suggested he was gay.

These reactions only occur in a small minority of the responses: roughly 6% of all male responses to images of male models rated the image as disturbing, and invoked distaste for homosexuality (or transexuality) as a rationale for that disturbance. Still, this is a high enough figure that it raises a serious question about Mulvey's Freudian mechanism for the gaze. In contrast to the Freudian concept of men experiencing castration anxiety on seeing the naked female form, all the evidence from this survey would suggest that men in 2010 are more apt to experience anxiety on seeing other men's penises.

Many of the other reasons stated for disturbance were quite thoughtful and particular. One woman, who identified herself as a virgin, wrote (of image #3): “The woman's face is discomfiting because she seems enthusiastic and I am anxious about Having Sex because I haven't...” Several men mentioned that image #40 disturbed them because, in their fantasies, it gave them too much control, and they weren't sure what to do.

Ambiguous Readings

If someone had never seen the image gallery, and were attempting to reconstruct it from the responses, they would certainly conclude that there were several hundred images, not a mere seventy. Not only do the fantasy elements of each narrative differ, but the ostensibly objective content varies. For instance, the lower model in image #51 is variously described as a cis-man, a trans-man, a woman wearing a strap-on dildo, or a woman holding a dildo that is not strapped in place. Several respondents viewed image #56 as depicting a couple engaged in anal sex with a strap-on dildo, a reading that I as a viewer simply cannot reconcile with the positions of the model's bodies.

I want to make two contentions about the way that people “resolve” these ambiguities.

First, there is a tendency for people to resolve ambiguous images in ways that produce the narrative that they expect to find (or hope to find, or, potentially, are afraid they'll find.) One woman stated this explicitly, saying that the model on the right in image #62 was female, and noted that she made this assumption in part because of “my own interest in filling her spot.”

Second, it appears that once people have resolved an image in a particular way, it is difficult for them to re-interpret the image, even if they change modes from fantasy to objective analysis. The survey was not constructed to ask for objective analysis, but respondents volunteered it in a few cases. For instance, in one narrative of image #44, the respondent read the male model as wearing a penis-extending device, an idea that they said aroused them. They then argued that the image had racist undertones, since it implied that “black chicks are used to big dicks.” But no other respondent saw anything here except a man wearing a condom.

There is considerable external support for these two hypotheses. To take one recent instance, American Apparel advertisements have been frequent targets of public outrage over their erotic imagery. Both the critics and the defenders of these images frequently mis-read the images in concrete ways. A recent AA advertisement featured a half-naked model holding a polo mallet. Critics interpreted this as a woman with a riding crop, or a woman in bondage. Meanwhile, the editors defending the decision to run the advertisement in a Vermont magazine described it as a woman holding a ski pole (skiing presumably being a large part of the local economy) (Polston et al. 2010). In each case, someone sat down specifically to write a description of an erotic image, and in each case they saw something quite different, objectively incorrect, and in keeping with their preconceived narratives.

I want to consider these hypotheses in regard to gender, power role, and facial expressions.

Ambiguous Readings: Gender

There are nine images in which the respondents disagreed on a model's gender. (These are #2, #10, #27, #31, #34, #51, #55, #62, and #70.) Of the 119 responses to these images, only six explicitly noted the ambiguity of a model's gender. In three other images (#14, #23, and #69) respondents noted an initial mis-perception of gender which they subsequently revised.

I collected the responses with gender ambiguities, and divided them into three categories for which we can test the first hypothesis, as follows.

Category I – Respondent Identifies with the model whose gender is in dispute. There were ten instances. In seven of the ten instances, the respondent identified the model with their own gender. (In 6 of those cases this provided a match with their sexuality, as well.) The three exceptions were all male respondents.

Category II – Respondent identifies with a different model, and has an exclusive sexual orientation. There were 13 instances. In 11 of these, the gender ascribed to the model fulfilled the dyad for the respondent's sexuality. For instance, heterosexuals looking at an image of a woman and a model of ambiguous gender tended to view the second model as male. Once again, the two exceptions came from male respondents.

Category III – Respondent does not identify with any model, and has an exclusive sexual orientation. There were 33 instances. In only 14 of those instances did the ascribed gender fulfill the sexual dyad. Of the 17 other respondents, 14 were male.

It seems, then, respondents who insert themselves into the image, tended to resolve ambiguities of gender in favor of their own fantasies. They were much less apt to do this if they didn't insert ourselves into the image. And in all cases, women were more likely to do this than men.

Ambiguous Readings: Power Roles

I categorized the power dynamics in each respondent's descriptions of the images, and then compared these descriptions for each image. In nine cases, all respondents described an image in neutral terms, without mentioning a power dynamic. In 14 cases, all respondents described an image using the same power dynamic, and in a further 22 cases, all respondents described an image either in neutral terms or in terms of a single dynamic. For instance, in image #37, the stories either focus on dominating the model, or make no references to power dynamics. Again, in image #12, most respondents do not suggest any power dynamic, but those who do agree that the woman is the “top”.

For the remaining 24 images, however, respondents did not simply disagree about whether there is a power dynamic, they disagree over what type of power dynamic might be present. For instance, in image #1, some respondents see the woman as a submissive who is about to be willingly or unwillingly spanked. Other respondents see the woman as a dominant figure who is teasing a submissive character with a view of her vulva. Still others do not read any power dynamics in the image.

In 12 different images, one or more respondents envisioned “complex” dynamics. Just how complex can be suggested by the respondent whose story for image #11 involved the addition of six off-stage characters, including himself, his wife, and a lesbian couple. These storylines were often very idiosyncratic and had little to do with the apparent content of the image. Some images generated as many as three distinct complex readings.

To test the hypothesis above, I want to ignore complex readings, most of which are difficult to classify. We will look at the 13 images for which there are directly conflicting simple power dynamics: some respondents think X has power over Y, and some respondents think Y has power over X. There are 37 descriptions of these images by respondents who describe themselves as dominant or submissive (or similar terms), and mention a specific power dynamic within the image. In 35 of the 37 instances, the respondent's interpretation of the power dynamic in the image corresponds with their own preferences based on gender and D/s role. In a few cases, the resulting narrative does not match the respondent's stated sexual orientation, and this is occasionally commented on. For instance, a submissive lesbian respondent writes (of image #55): “I want to be said pretty curly-haired sub. I like this image because female dominance is so frequently fetishized into this disgusting (to me) dominatrix thing, which I am not into at all. So I tend to turn to male dominance in porn, which is less interesting given my limited interest in men.”

Ambiguous Readings: Attitudes

Respondents' impressions of the model's attitudes were highly diverse. It was commonplace for respondents to describe the same facial expressions in diametrically opposed terms. The model in image #9, for instance, is described as coy, seductive, terrified, apologetic, or bored. The model in #29 is “sensitive,” “very submissive,” “drunken,” “has been abused.” The female model in #32 is “frustrated,” “enjoying it,” “doesn't look like she's enjoying it,” “nervous,” “hungry,” “lost in...multiple orgasms.” The model in image #1 is described as “having fun”; “not having a good time”; “shameless”; “not vulnerable”; “cold”; “excited”; “nervous”; “crying with pleasure.” This is spite of the fact that no part of the model's face is visible in the photograph!

In almost every instance, the facial expressions are resolved in a way that is consistent with the respondent's fantasy narrative. If this resolution is not possible, it is often singled out. The female model in image #44 is smiling and elevating her eyeballs, an expression that many respondents interpreted as non-sexy, and focused on this in their responses.

One reading of facial expressions in image #30 gives a good illustration of the second hypothesis. A woman describes the right-hand model in this image as “clenching his teeth and trying not to yell and reveal weakness.” The teeth-clenching fits nicely into her BDSM fantasy, but it is an additon: the model's mouth is obscured in the image, and clearly we cannot know if he is making noise or not. It is equally plausible that he is being photographed in the act of screaming. The respondent followed her fantasy with an ostensibly objective analysis of the image, arguing the two models are “on closer inspection” probably performing for an audience. One of the pieces of evidence offered for this conclusion is that the model is “noiseless.” This wording betrays the idea that even a careful, factual, reading is colored by the way the respondent initially saw (and heard!) the image.

Role in the Narrative

For each image they addressed, I asked respondents to explain the role that they saw themselves taking in their own fantasy. The tension of these possibilities has been noted in erotic art for a very long time, but I am not familiar with any efforts to study it empirically. One female respondent, writing of image #14, says:

“It reminds me of that poster that college boys have- "The Kiss" with the two girls. But this somehow feels so much more real, less like for a male fantasy and more like a private moment. Lesbian imagery always begs the question: which one am I in this image, or am I a third party about to join?”

To look at the way people answer that question, I divided the responses into eleven categories, described below. Such a breakdown is necessarily subjective, but the vast bulk of the responses fell easily into one of these categories. Nine responses offered multiple possible interpretations of their role in the narrative, and I coded each possibility separately, for a total of 939.

All the correlations and statistical comparisons below are significant to 0.05 or better.

Not There / No role Mentioned

I had prompted the respondents to write “I'm not there” if they did not envision themselves within the image. This response, in various forms, accounted for 22% of the responses. It is quite common for images that respondents found disturbing and not sexy. One respondent mentioned that she rarely ever saw herself as part of her fantasies when using pornography.

Another 28% of responses do not state any role, but do not explicitly disavow a role, either. This response was significantly more common from women, from kinky people (except submissives) and from heterosexuals; it was uncommon from bisexuals and homosexuals. It was negatively correlated with pornography usage, and most common with images that were found neither sexy nor disturbing; it is very uncommon in images that were regarded as both sexy and disturbing.

Virtually all the remaining role categories were strongly associated with sexy images, and dissassociated from “disturbing” or “neither” images.

Jumping the Frame (JtF)

In these responses, which account for 16% of the total, the respondent simply describes how they are interacting with the model(s). There is no segue or explanation for how or why they exist in this narrative: the hallmark of jumping the frame is that the viewer seems to takes it for granted that he or she can “step into” the picture.

The typical version of JtF is an older, heterosexual, male respondent who uses pornography frequently, looking at an image of a lone female model. This corresponds very well with Mulvey's description of the male gaze. As noted earlier, it also corresponds to a type of pornography (the “pin-up girl”) that seems to be losing prominence, and did not attract much interest from the younger respondents to this survey. JtF respondents are, on average, 47.5 years old; the survey mean is 38.4.

Numerous versions of JtF occur that do not meet the above description, though. These include female viewers, viewers entering the image to interact with groups, and in 10 instances, viewers imagining an interaction contrary to their stated sexual orientation.

Basic Surrogacy

In this pattern, the respondent equates themselves with a model whom they match in (percieved) gender and sexual orientation. They enter the narrative by “becoming” the character they assign to that model. A number of comments suggest that it is also important for the model to roughly match the respondent in terms of race and body type, and even hair color and handedness. This seems mainly to be a preoccupation of male respondents. Despite searching for a matching body, the respondent typically describes the story as though they are inhabiting the model's body and reality, not “exchanging places”. Typical phrases are “I would be that guy” or “I am her.”

This pattern, which corresponds well with Mulvey's concept of surrogacy, accounts for 15% of all responses. It is more common with submissives than dominants, and homosexuals than heterosexuals. It was more common among people who use pornography frequently and gave a qualified response to whether or not they were feminist.

Personalization

These are responses that are primarily focused on discussing the respondent's real-life recollections, anecdotes, or anxieties, as reflected by the image. A succinct but typical example would be this response to image #44: “Looks like the Ethiopian girl I slept with over the weekend” Again, a 20-year-old woman responds to #50: “I love that this beautiful woman looks close to my own age/comfort level - and I am fascinated by the idea that her novice experimentation is akin to my own.”

Personalization responses account for 4% of the total. They tend to come from respondents who use pornography frequently, are less apt to identify as feminists, and did not find the images in question disturbing.

Complex Surrogacy

In this pattern, the respondent identifies with a model as a surrogate (as above), but the model does not match the respondent in terms of perceived gender and/or sexual orientation. This accounts for 3% of all responses.

Complex surrogacy is substantially more common among submissives and homosexuals, and less common among heterosexuals. Respondents using this pattern tend to be younger than average (32.2 as opposed to 38.4).

Offstage Roles

In this category, which accounts for 3% of the total, the respondent envisions themselves in the narrative, but identifies with a character who does not appear in the image. Sometimes this character is identified within the implications of the image or narrative: for instance, a man discussing #64 writes “I'm the limo driver,” and a number of responses to images with bondage elements state that the respondent is the person who has bound the model. Respondents who create a “slave auction” narrative for an image might identify as an off-stage buyer.

In any event, the respondent's character is not envisioned as interacting with the models in the image, at least directly or immediately. In some cases, they are quite remote: in one response to image #39, the respondent identified themselves as the model's master, who was away on a business trip. (This distance is even more notable in the next category of images).

There is some indication that off-stage roles allow people to resolve images that they can't imagine themselves in. For instances, in five stories based on #14, #53 and #66, heterosexual respondents (or homosexuals of the other gender) used this pattern to identify the same-sex encounters in the image as a performance for their benefit.

Offstage roles are disproportionately likely to be used by respondents who identify as dominant, heteroflexible, and use pornography frequently.

Marginal Roles and Meta-fantasy

As mentioned above, offstage roles generally distance the respondent's surrogate character from the activity in the image. The extreme version of this pattern deserves its own category, as it is quite consistently described and offers some insight on the pornographic experience. In this pattern, the respondents describe themselves being inside their fantasy narrative, but they are explicitly only there to watch, and quite often are only allowed to watch.

For instance, one response to #49: “I'm there, but I'm just watching.” Or to #53: “I sit quietly in the room, careful not to break the tension by moving.” This pattern is striking in that it retains essentially the same detached, voyeuristic quality as the actual act of looking at the photograph. For instance, a male respondent places himself offstage in image #47 thusly: “I am observing his predicament, and wondering how it would be if I was in his place.” But the respondent is, in fact, observing the model's predicament and considering what it would be like. What is achieved by creating a fictional surrogate to duplicate the experience of one's actual self?

This question is amplified when the fantasy based on the picture involves the picture itself. Photography-as-such is a common theme in all responses, and especially common for marginal-role responses, which often identify the respondent as the photographer. In a small but telling number of instances, the photograph appears in the story based on the photograph. For instance, a story for image #64 involves the image itself being lost and seen by people it was not intended for. More paradoxically, a story for image #35 identifies it “as a photo of a story a friend is telling me over drinks.” This implies a kind of meta-fantasy: the respondent is (in fact) being shown a photograph, and fantasizing about it. In his fantasy, he is also being shown the photograph and fantasizing about it. What, one has to wonder, is his surrogate persona fantasizing about? Still another iteration of being presented with the photograph?

Marginal roles account for a further 3% of the total responses. They are more common among male respondents, and never occurred in respondents that had a low rate of pornography usage.

Unclear (JtF or Simple Surrogacy)

In the system of categorization I am using, there is a some overlap between clear-cut JtF stories and clear-cut surrogacy. At the boundary between these two imaginaries, the viewer may imagine themselves jumping the frame and then physically replacing (rather than becoming) one of the models. An excellent example of this is a response to #48, where one man wrote “Here, hand me that cane, I'll finish this. Go get a beer, dude.” In other cases, though, it is ambiguous whether the respondent has become the model, or entered the scene and functionally replaced the model (who is not them). This is made still more ambiguous when respondents ignore one of the models in their description.

I have classified the ambiguous responses as a separate category, which accounts for 2% of the total. Demographically, they closely resemble the responses classified as JtF.

Split Surrogacy

In these cases, respondents identified themselves as both or any of the models in images that had more than one model. In one instance, a man discussed the possibility of being both the models simultaneously. Of all the categories, this was the most likely to place the respondent in a foreign gender role or sexual orientation. It accounted for 2% of all responses, and was negatively associated with heterosexuality, and strongly associated with qualified responses about feminism.

Other

The final category, consisting of 1% of the total, includes responses in the second person, analyses of the image that didn't contain any information about the respondent's role in the image, questions of complaints about the purpose of the survey, and fantasies too confusing to categorize.

Other Thematic Content of Narratives

Incorporation of Lovers

A number of narratives involved the respondent's actual lovers, or former lovers. While this was most common in the category of personal reflections, lovers were also added to the image narratives, either off-stage or using models as proxy surrogates. In a few cases, respondents' fantasies placed their lover in an image but not themselves.

Coercion and Consent

Coercion was a common theme in many of the responses, and appeared in a variety of roles.

Some respondents explicitly fantasized about “consensual non-consent”: that is, they envisioned the persons in their fantasy as consenting to role-playing some type of coercion. This again has an aspect of meta-fantasy, since it suggests that the respondent's fantasy incorporates a secondary set of fantasies.

Other respondents explicitly fantasized about coercion, rape, sexual slavery, mind-control, and even murder. They may or may not emphasize that the victims derive some kind of enjoyment from this coercion (a common trope of D/s pornography) but the distinctly portray the fantasy as non-consensual. For instance, on respondent writes of image #41:

“This has been a fantasy of mine since before I can actually remember. I remember enacting complicated auction sequences with a friend of mine in the backyard in fourth grade that were very similar to this. In my mind, these women have been born into slavery or sold into it from a young age. They have been groomed particularly for sex slavery, and are both terrified to be chosen and desperate to be pleasing enough to catch someone’s eye. It’s a matter of both ego and the total abnegation of ego. - I’m there. In this image, specifically, I’m the one in the blurry foreground, because that’s the one that most looks like me.”

Finally, a considerable number of the entries discussed the possibility that the models in the photographs were being coerced or pressured into modeling, or that they were underage or intoxicated.

In many of the fantasy depictions of coercion in this survey, though, it is unclear whether the coercion being described is envisioned as real, fantasy, or meta-fantasy. Even terms like “slave” or “rape” are often used by BDSM enthusiasts to refer to consensual roles and activities, so they do not necessarily help to clarify this point. Yet it was frequently evident that respondents were contemplating multiple levels of fantasy where the issue of consent was concerned. This layering is apparent in descriptions like the following, written of image #40:

“In this image, as a sexual fantasy, I see a girl, who has been forced to be a sexslave. Her eyes are so sad, but on some level I also know, that of course her participation in taking this image is consensual and therefore a bit sexy, because she can let herself to be submissive like this. I'm not there.”

Given the degree of ambiguity cataloged earlier, it is perhaps no great surprise that coercion themes are hard to predict based on the objective content of an image. In image #57, for instance, one respondent views the image as consensual self-bondage, noting that this is physically impossible. Another respondent fantasizes that the model is being prepared for “a butt plug or suppository that contains a mind-control drug”. Similarly, the elements in image #41 are objectively so innocuous that it is arguably non-pornographic by several common definitions. Yet six of the twenty narratives involved the models being slaves or prisoners, a much higher rate than for some of the images that show women in bondage or being beaten. Meanwhile, image #48 shows a woman bound and being beaten. Welts are visible on her buttocks. Yet no respondent describes this image as coercive.

Three images produced fantasies of life-threatening peril with the possibility of a character dying. One respondent describes image #2 as depicting a man who has beaten a woman unconscious and is about to throw her in the sea. Another respondent describes #38 as a spy who is about to be frozen or buried alive and "left to die" by a mad scientist. A third image, #35, also generated a somewhat ambiguous drowning narrative. Indeed, none of these three stories are entirely explicit about the character's death, and the story for #38 includes the possibility of rescue. The major element of these narratives seems to be peril, rather than definite "snuff fantasies."

Salvation Fantasies

Another recurring theme in the fantasies offered by respondents was that they envisioned themselves “saving” the model from some type of distress, and generally being rewarded with sex. This salvation and gratitude fantasy occurred in a number of images that contain bondage or D/s elements: #25, #30, #35, #40, #57, #59, #60. It is used almost exclusively by heterosexual men who do not identify as kinky. In most cases, though, the respondents find the image sexy; their narrative does not ignore the bondage and D/s themes in the image, but rather is framed around negating them.

In some images that produced salvation narratives, there is no explicit danger present. For instance, one male respondent views image #61 as a sort of lost-in-the-wilderness story:

“I imagine him being found and nursed back to health by a heroine in romance novel fashion to spark a sexual scenario, either he is subservient out of gratitude, or else he overpowers his saviour. If I am in the story, then I am the saviour/heroine figure.”

Image #2, which most respondents did not see as containing any violent themes, produced both a salvation fantasy and a snuff fantasy. The same is true of image #35, if we interpret the drowning story as a snuff fantasy. And image #38 contains both a fantasy of leaving the model to die (from the villain's point of view) and a possibility of rescue. Apparently, content that lends itself to peril fantasies also lends itself to rescue fantasies.

Conclusion

In an argument loosely based on Mulvey's concept of the male gaze, it has long been assumed that the subjective experience of pornography involved either the viewer's sexual domination of the subject, or else the viewer adopting a like surrogate for the same end. In fact, these modes of encountering pornography appear to account for slightly less than one-third of responses to this survey. Even if we look only at responses in which the viewer is present in their narrative of the image, these simple modes account for only 63% of all responses. More surprisingly, from the traditional viewpoint, there is almost no difference in that rate by gender.

It appears that the experience of translating the objective elements of a pornographic image into an erotic fantasy is much more complex than has often been imagined. Viewers exercise considerable creativity in engaging the image, and often engage the image on multiple levels, producing both fantasy and analysis, or even fantasy and meta-fantasy. Viewers add, remove, and modify elements, impose storylines that bear no relationship to the image, freely change the genders of models, and insert themselves into the images in every imaginable way, or stay removed from it. Moreover, the objective content of the images does little to predict these interpretations. Polo mallets become riding crops; quiet conversations become anal sex. The most extreme themes in the respondent's fantasies, such as actual enslavement, mind control, and murder, are often found with images whose elements are quite innocuous. In several cases, an image with only two models produced five or more different combinations of power-role and gender interpretation.

Kipnis (1996) has argued that acknowledging these complexities undermines the use of pornography as a “political rallying point” for social conservatives. I am not sure I agree. In the last decade, anti-pornography legislation has increasingly focused on litanies of specific acts, body parts, and types of media, rather than abstract litmus tests for obscenity. Certainly, it is hard to reconcile such checklists with the idea that the content of images is highly subjective. But the acknowledgment of these ambiguities could shift legislators and activists in a more cautious direction. Image #41 is fairly tame in objective terms. One respondent saw it as a sexless “an ad for red hair dye.” But many of the other respondents read it as a slave auction or similarly coercive narrative. The existence of such readings could plausibly be a rallying point for concern about a much broader range of images.

Perhaps the most interesting result of this survey is the impression that there are cohort effects at work in how people experience pornography. The generation of heterosexual men over 30 are disproportionately likely to enjoy Playboy images and breast-focused single-model shots. They are also the group that most consistently “jumps the frame” or uses simple surrogacy to engage images. By contrast, younger respondents and non-heterosexuals are much more likely to engage the images in other ways, especially if they are frequent users of pornography.

These conclusions are problematic. It is much easier, for instance, to measure whether someone is looking at an image of a kiss, or a rape, than it is to measure if they are seeing a kiss, or a rape. Legislators, in particular, have to deal with the objective. Yet any understanding of pornography's behavioral effects has to focus on the subjective, and it would appear that that the subjectivities of pornography are as complex and varied as human desire.

Areas for Further Research

This study focused on a population that was already familiar with pornography; it would be instructive to compare results with a group that was not. Similarly, in this study I focused on a relatively narrow spectrum of body types, ages of models, and fetish elements. I focused on a single medium: photography. It seems possible that a narrative medium such as text or video would reduce the ability of the viewer to manufacture their own storyline. Again, images with more unusual themes might inhibit the creativity that was apparent in this survey. Or perhaps not: this is certainly an arena where further research would be rewarding.

From a policy standpoint, it would be quite useful to have a comparison with a population of known sex offenders, or a population that could be given attitudinal inventories of some type.

Finally, I believe this study demonstrates that Tumblr is an effective medium for implementing and advertising a survey of this type.

Patriarchy (as etiology)

2010-07-18T18:15:00.000-07:00

Radical feminists offer a particular etiology for kink presented in combination with political and ethical questions, which I will discuss elsewhere@. The etiological claim is that BDSM is a personal replication of patriarchal power relationships. It is a behavior pattern “learned in an alienating context” (Rian 1982) or a “learned intolerance of difference” (Lourde 1982, see also Rian 1982, Jeffreys 1990). A major counterpart to the argument, which I address separately, is that pornography@ is a crucial distribution mechanism for sadomasochism.

This theory is heavily critical of the idea that kink (or other sexualities) might be genetically determined (which see). However, it differs from other etiological proposal which also view kink as a learned behavior. Radical feminist writing describes kink (and other sexualities) as essentially political decisions made under political pressures. No other etiology of kinky desires ascribes this much agency to the individual.

The Scope of Patriarchy

It is unquestionably true that many of the myriad tropes@ that make up kink are adopted (or adapted) from behaviors that are obviously associated with patriarchy. Radical feminists have especially pointed out the symbolic equation of masculinity with dominance, and femininity with submission, even in gay and lesbian contexts. (e.g. Jeffrys (1990), Stoltenberg 1982 [1979]). This identification is often so direct as to preempt comment: forced-feminization tropes are an example, as is the association of penetration with dominance, or gay male hyper-masculinity.

Other kinky scripts—such as animal role-play, agalamatophilia, infantilism, foot worship, and even bondage—do not seem to be based on obvious patriarchal themes. Patriarchy provides a rich source of themes, but so do prisons, boarding schools, slave societies, domestic animals, parent-child interactions, human-object interactions, capitalist market interactions, and the like.

We can, of course, view all of these things as allied to patriarchy. Indeed, despite using sightly different definitions, radical feminists and anthropologists are in general agreement that all human societies are historically patriarchal. But this leads to a problem of overdetermination, even tautology: if all human behavior is caused by patriarchy, than it is irrelevant to point out this is true of kink, as well.

Radical feminism does not propose an etiology for kink in isolation; it is concerned with the broader goal of dismantling and transcending patriarchy. This allows us to escape the problem of overdetermination: while all human activity may be influenced by patriarchy, it is not equally influenced, and some behaviors might be counter-patriarchal. This allows us some means of looking at the etiological claim empirically. There are three several lines of evidence which might be brought to bear in this regard.

Normalcy of Kink

Radical feminism tends to portray kink as a mainstream or even "ubiquitous" phenomenon, which might be expected if it is closely aligned to the dominant political system (e.g. Usul of the Blackfoot 2009). Moreover, kink is presented as an increasingly prominent sexual mode by many radical feminist authors. These claims are often contrasted to arguments that kink is stigmatized, or that patriarchy has weakened in the time frame under consideration (which spans roughly four decades).

Such claims are not necessarily antithetical. It is quite possible for a group to achieve media saturation while simultaneously being stigmatized: that has certainly been the case with women and many minority groups, over time. Again, this line of argument has been defused by several radical feminist authors in Linden et al (1982), who argue that insofar as the patriarchy stigmatizes kink, it is precisely because kink is too obvious a manifestation of patriarchal values.

In the end, this line of argument involves the comparison of two questions. Is patriarchy increasing or decreasing? Is BDSM endorsed or denigrated by that patriarchy? Answers to either question are necessarily subjective, and evidence is apt to be cherry-picked.

Role Demographics

Radical feminist theory contends that while BDSM originates from (and promotes) male domination of women, it is capable of moving as a sort of independent meme through any permutation of the participants' genders. Robin Morgan (1982), discussing lesbian BDSM, writes “no one appeared to wonder whether this S-M proliferation was a lesbian copy of a faggot imitation of patriarchal backlash against feminism.” In other words, the idea of BDSM can be considered an assault on feminism regardless of the genders of the top and bottom.

Still, if kinky sexualities are caused by copying and imitating patriarchal roles, we might very well expect that the majority of heterosexual kink would involve male domination and female submission. It is troubling, then, that at a best guess, M/f and F/m sexualities are about equally frequent.

If kink has its origins in male domination of women, this parity surely deserves considerable explanation. It is certainly possible that F/m kink simply involves an “reversed imitation” of patriarchy. But there is no proposed explanation for why such a reversal should be just as common as a direct imitation. Indeed, Farley (1993) grossly overestimates the lesbian dominance-to-submission ratio in what appears to be a clear attempt to whitewash this problem.

Feminist Values

There is only one study that I know of that directly examines the feminist values of self-identified kinky people: Cross and Matheson (2006). The results, discussed here, suggest that kinky people equal or exceed the general population on two measures of feminist values. If kink is viewed as ipso facto patriarchal, then we might discount this claim. However, it would still suggest that kink is not associated with other forms of misogynistic attitudes, and it is hard to integrate this with the idea that patriarchy produces kink.

Kink in Less Patriarchal Societies

While there are no actual matriarchies on earth, three of the five societies listed by Ford and Beach (1951) as having sadoerotic practices lean heavily in the direction of matriarchy. This includes the Trobrianders, often considered the closest thing to an actual matriarchy. The number of intercultural subjectivities make it hard to draw any conclusions, but certainly this observation offers no support for the idea that kink is a product of intensive patriarchy.

Conclusions

There is undoubtedly a deep and complex interaction between patriarchy and the culture of BDSM. It seems clear, in particular, that practices and images associated with M/f kink dynamics are routinely viewed by the wider society as an endorsement of patriarchy. This raises serious political questions that are entirely distinct from etiology. Where etiology itself is concerned, though, there is little or no empirical evidence consistent with the explanation proposed by radical feminist theory. In large part, this is because the body of radical feminist theory frequently rejects evidence that could be used to test its claims: notably, any attempt to measure changes in the intensity of patriarchy from era to era or culture to culture. Due to this epistemological divide, it seems unlikely that arguments about BDSM between radical feminists and others will ever conclude in agreement.

Stigma

2010-06-14T13:47:00.000-07:00

Sociologists tend to take it for granted that BDSM is an unorthodox and stigmatized sexual category (Reiersøl and Skeid 2006, etc.) Haidt, Koller, and Dias (1993) have found that, in general, people tend to view sexual deviance as “worse” than other forms of deviance. Janus and Janus (1994) conclude that 75% of men and 78% of women in America either consider BDSM to be highly deviant, or else have never heard of it.

But the degree to which BDSM is stigmatized or tolerated by the wider culture is itself the subject of considerable controversy. In part this seems to be a legacy of the civil rights and queer liberation movements: insofar as kink might be an identity category subject to persecution, it becomes culturally and perhaps legally more sympathetic.

Allegations for and against stigmatization

Prior to the 1980s, there are very few examples of any public appeal for tolerance being made by (or on behalf of) kinky people. I am only aware of three. The Kinsey Institute supported tolerance for a wide range of sexual minorities as early as 1948; Weinberg (2006), credits Kinsey's colleague Gebhardt with being one of the first scholars to deal with BDSM as a sociological question (Gebhardt 1976 [1969]). The vast bulk of the Kinsey Institute's appeal for tolerance, however, was focused on masturbation, pre-marital sex, and homosexuality.

Two books in this era focused sympathetically on kink—Ullerstam (1966) and the Greenes (1974). These were both ridiculed in the Journal of Sex Research; in each case the reviewer decided to treat the plea for tolerance as a satire (Beigel 1966; Sagarin 1976). Meanwhile, virtually all contemporary accounts of kink treated it as a highly dangerous pathology, often interspersing discussions of kink with larger discussions of violence, barbarity, homicide, and the like (Ellis 1905, Stekel 1929; see Clifton 1982 for a similar treatment).

But the absence of voices supporting kink in this era can be understood in various ways. Perhaps kinky people kept silent because it was so deeply taboo: a sexual minority within a sexual minority, as Lee (1979) describes it. Perhaps BDSM was in no way stigmatized, being the ultimate expression of normative, patriarchal power relationships (Wagner 1982; Dworkin 1987). Perhaps BDSM was censored by the patriarchal establishment precisely because it was too extreme a version of heterosexual power relations; too obvious an injustice (Atkinson, 1982). Again, it is possible that BDSM was imagined as a largely homosexual phenomenon, and the stigma associated with it was subsumed in the stigma associated with homophobia (c.f. Brownmiller 1990 [1975] pp. 290-293).

BDSM has been a subject of passionate debate as within queer liberation, and especially within the feminist movement. Ridinger (2006) notes that the homophile movement of the 1950s-1960s (a precursor to later queer liberation movements), rejected leathermen as damaging to the image of homosexuality that they were trying to foster. Gay advocates did not assist in the People vs. Samuels case in 1967, presumably because of the BDSM elements in the case.

In this context, in 1971, the National Organization of Women specifically excluded SM-identified women from their statement of support. This position was reiterated and challenged many times, with a great deal of ink spilled on both sides, until the language was finally dropped twenty-five years later (Wright 2006, Hart 1998).

Policies aimed at supressing BDSM expression at the Michigan Womyn's festival were enacted in the 1970s(?). In 1980, three events focused criticism on BDSM: a reiterated of the NOW resolution, the portrayal of gay leathermen in the film Cruisings, and the CBS documentary Gay Power, Gay Politics, which suggested that BDSM was responsible for large numbers of deaths (Hart 1998).

In this climate, Samois published a booklet aimed at kinky lesbians: What Color is your Handkerchief? This pamphlet argued that kinky lesbians were a legitimate sexual minority who faced stigma from other lesbians, and from the wider culture. In response, Linden compiled the anthology Against Sadomasochism (1982), and the general themes of those articles—even specific examples—are repeated in later radical feminist writing. Most of the authors in Against Sadomasochism explicitly reject the notion that BDSM is stigmatized. Not all, though: Hoagland (1982), for instance, agrees that BDSM is a “persecuted fringe.” But the general position is that BDSM is congruent with patriarchal sexual oppression, and kinky people have no legitimate complaints: they are complaining about public attitudes, or “not being allowed in the parade.” In particular, the authors reject any sense of equivalency between BDSM as a stigmatized sexuality and lesbianism as a stigmatized sexuality. The claims of stigma attached to BDSM are likened to “fabricated oppression” (Norris 1982) and “disruptive” to the project of lesbian liberation and solidarity (Sims, Mason, and Pagano 1982). Within this cultural moment, there were also claims that pro-BDSM feminists were marginalizing anti-BDSM feminists, and vice versa (e.g. Dejanikus 1982).

Problematically, however, this very active debate over the degree of stigma attached to kink occurred in a fairly esoteric, separatist, and indeed stigmatized corner of American political and culture life. The hyperbolic cultural criticism of both What Color is Your Handkerchief? and Against Sadmasochism positions them very far from the mainstream. For instance, in attacking kink, Lourde and Star (1982) suggest that white gay men are largely working in league with the establishment, defending the status quo (this under Reagan). Whatever the merits of such claims, they complicate the outside reader's understanding of what radical feminist lesbians might mean by “stigma.”

Conservative critics, on the other hand, have tended to denigrate kinky people in the same terms as they denigrate gays and lesbians, and often seem to view kink as an extended perversion of homosexuality. Prominent recent examples of this have occurred around Jack McGeorge, the UN Weapons Inspector criticized by the Washington Post for being kinky (Wright 2006); Ann Coulter and John Gibson attacking a BDSM student organization at Columbia (Fox News 2006); Micheal Savage's comparison of the Folsom Fair BDSM event to Nazi Germany (Media Matters 2008); and so forth. It seems noteworthy that these critics not only seek to stigmatize kinky people, but also presume that they already are stigmatized. Coulter, for instance, alleges that kinky students are self-evidently “the biggest losers on campus.”

Evidence for Stigmatization

Aside from the mainly discursive claims above, the most frequently cited evidence for stigmatization of kink is its dubious legal status@. There are numerous instances of clearly consensual BDSM becoming the subject of criminal investigation and often prosecution. Kinky people are also severely disadvantaged in child custody@ cases. And kinky people entering therapy@ not infrequently encounter bias against their sexuality (Kolmes, Stock, and Moser 2006).

In a 1993 survey, 25% of kinky lesbians said they had experienced violence and 30% ostracism from other lesbians, as a result of their kink (Keres 1994) Plante (2006) describes how people involved in a spanking subculture denigrate BDSM as being really kinky, and distance themselves from it. Under pressure from conservative groups, hotel chains such as Cedant have boycotted BDSM conferences throughout the Midwest. Pressure from local police shut down such conferences in Ocean City, Maryland, and in suburban New Orleans. In Missouri, a bill was introduced by Republican Senator John Loudon to ban such conferences, though the bill was dropped (Wright 2006).

BDSM imagery and text is another possible field for stigmatization. Anti-pornography activism and law has often focused especially on sadomasochistic pornography; laws such as the UK's “Extreme Pornography” act single out BDSM pornography for special restrictions. Hoagland (1982) suggests that there was considerable editorial refusal to print BDSM content in lesbian publications. Weiss (2006) discusses some of the proliferation of BDSM images in popular media, and argues that these present a stereotypical view of kink as a pathology, in which kinky people can become redeemed only insofar as they approach normal sexuality. In the US, bills have been proposed (though not enacted) to ban NEA funding of artwork containing BDSM themes (Hart 1998).

Brame's (2000) survey of almost seven thousand kinky people found considerable evidence for subjective experience of stigma. She asked a series of questions using a forced-decision four-part likert scale. Here I am looking only at the strongest response category: “yes, definitely.” 23% of Brame's survey population have felt guilty or ashamed about their sexual desires; 20% have tried to give them up in order “to be more normal;” 13% feel that their kink has hurt their ability to be in a long-term loving relationship; 10% have had conflicts with their family over their kink; 10% feel a definite conflict between their religion and their kink; 7% have sought therapy specifically to cope with their kink, 4% have considered suicide; 3% feel that their kink has negatively impacted their employment. Finally, only 13% of her population see themselves as fully out of the closet; 14% are not out to anyone, including lovers or close friends. Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) find that over 70% of kinky people feel their religion would "never" approve of them sexually, and 68% feel that their parents would never approve.

Updated 6/14/2010

Educational Profile

2010-05-15T08:24:00.000-07:00

Purposive samples of BDSM populations tend to find that they are relatively well-educated. (Alison et al 2001; Nordling et al 2006) This probably reflects a scene bias to some degree, with better-educated people being more apt to participate in BDSM organizations. Brame (2000) and Bienvenu and Jacque (1999) consistently find that about 30% of their samples have a terminal BA and 20% (about twice the national average) have an advanced degree. However, they disagree radically on the level of high school completion.

Broader population surveys do not report such a finding. Richters et al (2008) finds no relationship between BDSM practice and level of education. Tomassilli et al. (2009) find no relationship for lesbians and bisexual women.

Updated 5/5/2010

Kink / Queer Comparisons

2010-03-13T07:49:00.000-08:00

Classical psychology treated homosexuality (“inversion”) as a perversion comparable to sadism and masochism, and often discussed them categorically. During the slow rehabilitation of homosexuality in the 20th century, the equivalencies between queerness and kinkiness became a source of interest and contention. For instance, Ullerstam (1966) makes this equation. Meyer-Bahlburg (1980) notes that the same pattern of biased research based on clinical samples being overturned by later survey samples applies in both cases.

With the advent of a vigorous queer liberation movement in the 1970s, many authors sought to distinguish between queerness and kink, portraying the former as a healthy sexuality deserving legal and cultural protections, while the latter was sociopathic. This became a major item of contention in the so-called “feminist sex wars,” with most of the arguments focusing on the intersection of BDSM and radical lesbianism. It was not confined to that arena; Rechy, for instance, excoriated kink within gay male culure (in Lee 1979). Jeffries (1990) argues, however, that kinky gay men did not provide a theory or defense of BDSM, relying instead on lesbian authors.

The etiology of kink has been especially contentious in this regard. In explaining kink as socially constructed learned behavior (e.g. Rian 1982), many early radical feminist authors strongly objected to the claim that BDSM proclivities were innate or genetic in some minority of people. At the time that the anthology Against Sadomasochism was published, most radical feminist thought in America asserted that lesbianism (even if closeted) was a political choice, a (partial) act of liberation from patriarchal structures; a “decolonialization of the body.” (Clarke 1981). For instance, Wagner (1982) suggests that homosexuality is a “freely chosen, emergent, and changing” sexuality. She considers the idea that homosexuality could be innate to be abhorrent “biological determinism,” and cites Dworkin in calling this “the world's most dangerous and deadly idea.” Rian states that it is “analytically incorrect to assume that any sexual desire is an innately or psychologically given character trait, a fixed and unchanging part of one's personality.”

Perhaps mainly for tactical reasons, subsequent queer discourse in the United States has tended to follow a civil-rights strategy. This emphasizes that sexualities are innate, non-chosen, and are thus ostensibly less vulnerable to moral attack, since they cannot be construed as deviant choices. While some radical feminists (and a much larger bloc of social conservatives) still reject innateness, others do not. This dissonance has made it especially fraught to make comparisons between queer and kinky experience (despite the fact that perhaps 60% of kinky people are non-heterosexual.)

In recent years, radical feminism has tended to accept innate lesbianism (as well as elective or “political lesbianism”), but assert that kink is wholly learned behavior. Empirical scholarship and activist groups like the NCSF have generally asserted that kink is largely innate and shares certain commonalities with queerness in terms of its marginal status. Some authors have begun to include straight BDSM within the rubric of “queer,” though this has not entered popular usage.

Kink among Indigenous Peoples

2010-03-13T05:21:00.000-08:00

Efforts to look at sexuality among indigenous peoples have hsitorically been fraught with the projected fantasies of Western observers. Even the boundaries of what is and is not erotic have often been confused, with European authors routinely overwriting their own sense of eroticism onto behaviors that had no erotic significance for the participants. When we approach deviant sexuality, this problem is redoubled, since deviance also has subtle gradations, and is necessarily veiled to outsiders.

Stoller (1991, p 44) suggests that there are no “consensual sadomasochistic rituals” among the Sambia, and generalizes this to all "primitive peoples." He is, however, not an anthropologist.

Ford and Beach (1951) comparing anthropological accounts, note a number of indigenous societies in which “there occurs a surprising amount of behavior that involves the infliction of pain in association with coital activities.” These included the Siriono, Choroti, and Apinaye peoples in South America, along with the Trukese and Trobriander Islanders in Oceania. (pp. 55-57). Many of the tropes among these peoples are quite recognizable to Western kink: biting and scratching (often to the point of drawing blood), pinching, hair pulling, spitting in faces, and eroticizing the marks of previous sadosexual acts. Other activities would be highly unusual in the West: eye-poking, ear-poking, and biting off eyebrows, for instance.

These patterns differ in functional ways from what Westerners consider “kink:” they do not seem to involve fixed top/bottom roles, and it is not clear to what extent this behavior is deviant (i.e. queer) in the normatives of those cultures. Moreover, this whole genre of anthropology is fraught with the potential for observer bias and oversights. But this does establish that sadomasochism is a widespread feature of human sexuality, even in societies very unlike those in the industrial world.

Perhaps most interestingly, Ford and Beach point out that these societies (which span a wide range of lifeways in most respects) all tend to have highly permissive child-rearing, and it would appear that they also tend to tolerate a wide range of sexual behavior. At least two of these societies (the Siriono and Trobriand) are notable for their very weak patriarchal structures. Both of these societies have a very high degree of sexual freedom for both genders. The Siriono are exceptional for their degree of remove from the modern patriarchal / state / capitalist order. At the time they were first studied, they had very weak chieftainships, almost no numeration, metrics, or technology, no trade, and no permanent dwellings. (Holmberg (1950), Stearman (c1987)) The Trobriand Islanders are a matrilineal and partially matrifocal society, whose description by Malinowski (1966 [1922]) ushered in widespread anthropological discussion about the role of women in indigenous societies. Later research (e.g. Weiner 1987)) found that Trobriand women enjoyed even more forms of power than Malinowski believed, and the Trobriand are often referenced as the closest real-life example to a matriarchal societiy. Finally, the Truk islanders seem to share many of these gender dynamics with the Trobriand islanders.

Such correlations are too fragile to make the basis for an argument. In particular, it seems likely that many other indigenous societies use sadoerotic sexual play, but are not mentioned as such in Ford and Beach. However, the fact that three of the five peoples in this list seem to be clustered at the low end of the patriarchal spectrum should give pause to the opposite argument: that BDSM is produced by patriarchy.

Updated 5/29/10

Prevalence of BDSM Pornography

2010-03-12T13:50:00.000-08:00

The prevalence of BDSM pornography is of interest in several regards. First, it might serve as a proxy indicator for the actual prevalence of kink, though we should not take that for granted: there are far more cowboy movies than cowboys, for instance. Second, it is politically contentious insofar as anti-pornographic rhetoric has often exaggerated the prevalence of BDSM in pornography, and tied this to rape culture (see Kutchinsky (1991) for a discussion and bibliography). Finally, it is relevant to the hypothesis that pornography is important in the etiology of kink.

There are serious definitional and methodological problems in all the following research. “Pornography” itself is a very ambiguous term. From the point of view of Christian conservatives, for instance, it may include mass-market novels, radio, and television programs whose focus is primarily “romantic,” not erotic. The frequent assertion by some authors that all pornography involves the exploitation of women would seem to preclude by definition erotic materials that feature only men, or that are non-documentary (text, cartoons, etc.).

Again, there are many possible standards for terms like “hard-core,” “aggression,” or even “rape” in the context of a photograph or the narrative of sexual theater. Is the presence of a leather collar by itself S&M? If there is no negotiated consent in a video, should we assume the video is meant to depict a rape? (This question of depiction, of course, is independent from whether or not the video actually records a rape.) To some large extent these are subjective determinations. These ambiguities are exacerbated in non-documentary media such as drawings (which probably account for the bulk of all pornography worldwide). Malamuth and Spinner (1980) note the difficulty of deciding "what constitutes sexual violence within a cartoon stimulus."

Finally, there is a strong argument to be made that market segregation operates within the pornographic industry. Kinky materials, like homosexual materials, may be sold be different vendors than those who sell heternormative pornography. If that is true, it casts substantial doubt on the methodologies of the studies below.

Study	Rate	Variable	Sample
Cowan et al. (1988)	51%	Rape	Videos
Smith (1976)	33%	Coercion	Erotic novels
Soble (1986)	16%	BDSM	300 magazines
Malamuth and Spinner (1980)	10%	Violence	Playboy and Penthouse cartoons
Palys (1984)	6.4%	Aggression	150 videos, Vancouver
Malamuth and Spinner (1980)	5%	Violence	Playboy and Penthouse photos
Winick (1985)	4.9%	B/D	430 magazines in NYC
Canada (1984)	3.4%	Violence	Stories in magazines
Kutchinsky (1981)	2%	Hard-core SM	Magazines and videos, Denmark
Canada (1984)	1.2%	Violence	Photos in magazines
Winick (1985)	1.2%	S/M	430 magazines in NYC

Some comments are in order. Nearly all of these surveys place the prevalence of BDSM in a given field of pornography somewhere between 1% and 7%, with the “harder” content being proprtionately less common. This range is quite consistent with the best estimates for the prevalance of kinky people overall. In fact, it is lower than the likely estimate for the number of people who have ever experimented with BDSM.

The very high incidence of rape found by Cowan et al. (and also by Smith) has been critiqued by Fisher and Barak (1991), among others, for lack of a control group. However, none of these studies here used control groups. It seems likely that depictions of sex without explicit consent—i.e. rape fantasies—are a very common trope both in pornography and in mainstream media (e.g. Gone with the Wind, Blade Runner). Notably, while these materials depict coercive sex, it is generally depicted as enjoyable for both parties (Winick 1985). The implication is that women enjoy rape, but not that women's enjoyment of sex is irrelevant. (See Morgan 1982 for one of many discussions on this point.)

Relationships

2010-01-09T05:32:00.000-08:00

There is very little research on kinky people in relationships. Indeed, the conception of kink as a highly antisocial psychopathology probably steered early researchers away from even pursuing this possibility. When Ullerstam (1966) suggested that sadists and masochists could seek each other out to form a mutually satisfactory relationship, Beigel's review (1966) treated this idea as self-evidently ridiculous. Stoller (1975, p. 58) even suggests that sadists and masochists would be incompatible, as their fantasies don't actually overlap. Lee (1979) finds no long-term relationships in his sample of kinky gay men, and concludes that the theatrical elements of kink preclude love, romance, and humor—and therefore any sort of lasting relationship.

So we do not have many answers for what should otherwise seem to be very obvious questions. Are kinky people in relationships usually in relationships with other kinky people? If so, do they maintain fixed D/s roles, or switch? Do the relationships last? Do they marry? Do they have children? What aspects of their life as a couple affect, are affected, or are irrelevant to their sexuality?

We don't know yet.

When kink has been discussed in the context of relationships, it is usually viewed as a problem which one partner brings to the relationship. The DSM-IV, for instance, points out that 50% of sadomasochists are married. Moser and Kleinplatz (2005) both question the validity of this figure and ask why it is being mentioned, when marital rates are not listed for other psychological disorders.

It seems germane to point out that the scope of research into BDSM covers a time span in which normative non-kinky marriages have changed considerably. Marriage styles that were considered normal and healthy in the 1950s and 1960s are now being re-envisioned as (non-erotic) D/s relationships (Doyle 2001, etc.). Perhaps the unwillingness of early researchers to contemplate D/s relationships was, in part, an unwillingness to critique the power relations of conventional marriage in their era.

In all events, we have relatively few studies on the relationships of kinky people.

Relationship Status

Richters et al. (2006) could find few significant associations between BDSM practice and relationship status. Kinky women are somewhat more likely to be in a committed relationship with someone who they don't live with. They also found that kinky people of either sex are substantially more likely to be in sexually non-exclusive relationships. Otherwise, though, the relationship status of kinky persons seemed indistinguishable from their non-kinky peers.

Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) find about 53% of their survey group are legally married, 28% have never married, and 13% are divorced: there is some variation between genders. Kinky men are more likely than kinky women to have never married, kinky women are more likely than kinky men to be divorced. Brame (2000) finds 38% of kinky people are married or “permanently partnered,” and another 17% are in a commited relationship; 26% were formerly in a relationship (she does not look at divorce per se); 14% are never married or partnered; and 5% are polyamorous. Comparable US statistics for the adult population put those figures at 56% married, 34.7% never married, and 9.8% divorced (Lugaila 1999).

Tomassilli et al. (2009) find no association between kink and relationship status among lesbians and bisexual women.

Children

Brame (2000) finds that 51% of her survey group have children. Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) put that figure at 41%, with women being somewhat more likely to have kids than men. These findings are not unusually high or low for the United States.

Relationship Issues with Kink

Nichols (2006) reports that a common psychotherapeutic issue for kinky couples is “bleed-through” of D/s dynamics from the erotic sphere into other arenas. That is to say, the sexual submissive may also becoming the domestic submissive, or the sexual dominant may take on non-sexual decision-making responsibilities. Either or both partners might feel dissatisfied with these new roles. This is complicated by the fact that many D/s couples seem to eroticize at least some aspects of this bleed-through, and others (see below) embrace it completely.

Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser (2006) point out that kinky people in relationships often feel they have to be furtive about the power dynamics of their relationship, perhaps hiding their D/s dynamic from friends and family, or even their children. This seems a likely source of stress. (Note that this is probably subcultural, as well. D/s that is considered shocking in one setting (such as strict gendered division of labor) might be viewed as normal in another setting.)

24/7 Slavery

Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser (2006), focus on couples identifying as practicing “24/7 slavery.” Here the emic term “slavery” is used to mean a relationship in which, ostensibly, the dominant partner controls the submissive partner in a lasting and unlimited fashion; following the authors, I am not placing the term or its cognates in quotation marks. Anecdotally, this is only a small subset of all kinky people, but there has never been an attempt to determine how large this group actually is. The researchers uncovered a number of ways in which limits do exist even within these relationships. Just over half of these couples employ some sort of safeword. They write:

“Although these relationships are reportedly without limit, the process of deciding to enter into the relationship is such, that the submissive partner rarely finds the dominant’s desires incompatible with his or her own.”

Nevertheless, 74% of the slaves in their sample report activities that they would have found “inconceivable” at the outset of the relationship.

Among the male slaves, 77% were in a relationship with a man; among the female slaves, 93% were in a relationship with a man. This would strongly suggest that kinky gay men are more likely to practice 24/7 slavery than heterosexual F/m couples. It isn't clear if kinky lesbians are unusually likely to practice 24/7 slavery or not.

Subjects in this survey ranged in age from 18 to 72, and had been enslaved for anywhere from three weeks to 22 years; three and half years on average.

Some slaves in the Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser survey reported having had earlier 24/7 relationships. In a majority (69%) of those cases, it was the slave who decided to leave, and the most common reasons have to do with fear that things were going “too far” in some sense. This suggests both a risk of escalation beyond mutually acceptable limits, and also the capacity for these “slaves” to terminate their enslavement at will. This is not necessarily always the case. The 1980 Commonwealth v. Appleby case (discussed in Ridinger 2006), and the "Delia Day" case in 2003 both involve 24/7 slaves (one male, one female) who fled or killed their partners, respectively. In both cases the courts seem to have accepted an interpretation of events in which the slave wished to leave, but was being coercively prevented from leaving.

Updated 5/15/2010

Self-Harm

2010-01-08T07:13:00.000-08:00

Self-harm, also known as self-mutilative behavior (SMB) refers to a spectrum of behaviors most commonly involving burning or cutting oneself. A clinical literature on self-mutilation dates back to at least the 1930s. Much of the research focus in this literature is distinguishing between “parasuicidal” SMB like wrist-cutting, and actual suicidal behaviors. As with other nosologies, the definition and boundaries of SMB are contested. There are rare and extreme incidents associated with psychotic behavior—such as self-blinding, autocannibalism, and self-amputation—as well as habitual self-harm in some autistic people. While these are often conflated with other forms of self-harm, there is an ongoing debate as to whether this is appropriate.

The general consensus is that SMB in young persons who are not also autistic or psychotic is associated with anxiety, trauma, abuse history, and/or depression. It seems to affect anywhere from 7% to 14% of youth, with some studies putting the number closer to 30%. (Hawton and Anthony 2005) While SMB may serve purposes, the major arguments are that is is an outlet for emotional catharsis, or as an overwhelming sensory experience to mitigate feelings of dissociation. Some psychologists and radical feminists (Walsh and Rosen 1988 p. 118, Jeffries 1990 pp. 217-220), also associate SMB with transsexualism, though this theory seems to be losing favor. Finally, visible self-mutilation can serve as means of signaling to others, either as a “cry for help” or to establish in-group bonding. In this latter capacity, self-harm is especially associated with goth, punk, and garage subcultures. (Young et al., 2006)

There is a superficial similarity between SMB and sadomasochistic behavior, inasmuch as both involve intentionally inflicted and received pain. The goth aesthetic is also associated with BDSM through certain cultural channels, such as vampire fiction, though the strength of this association is unknown. In all events, the popular association between SMB and sadomasochism was made ironclad by the 2002 film Secretary, directed by Steve Shainberg. In this movie, the character Lee Holloway is presented as cutting and burning herself, and evolves into being a submissive masochist at the hands of a paternalistic dominant lover, who forbids her from engaging in SMB, essentially appropriating the right to injure her. This movie was the first intentional “crossover” piece between kinky and non-kinky audiences, and had a widespread impact on popular perceptions of kink (Weiss 2006).

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that self-harm and kink are correlated. Walsh and Rosen's monograph makes no such a connection, despite a comprehensive review of studies of sexual identity in relation to SMB. Their sole mention of self-harm in relation to “sexual deviance” is a case of a man hospitalized for schizophrenia and manic depression, who cut his penis in order to entice the nurse into dressing the wound. Clearly this is neither typical of BDSM or self-harm.

Walsh and Rosen do suggest a link between self-harm and self-administered tattoos or piercings. However, Richters et al (2008) find that kinky people are not significantly more likely than peers to have tattoos or recent piercings.

More generally, the literature on self-harm distinguishes it from kink in almost all aspects. The SMB is never described as having erotic value; it is not accompanied by masturbation; and is almost always a solitary activity, and is frequently intended to signal to outsiders that the self-harmer wants some form of attention. Kink activities, on the other hand, are generally erotic, involve another person, and are usually elaborately kept secret from outsiders. Even the activities appear to be distinct, with SMB typically focusing on small cuts and burns, whereas kink focuses to a large extent on impact devices@.

Because the population of people who self-harm is probably larger than the population of kinky people, it would be helpful for further research to focus on the prevalence of SMB among kinky people, rather than the reverse. At the moment, though, there is no evidence for any connection.

Updated 1/11/2010

Childhood Abuse (as Etiology)

2010-01-03T19:45:00.000-08:00

One of the most persistent narratives in the popular and scholarly understanding of kink is that it is a result of childhood sexual abuse (see Weinberg 2006 for a bibliography). This argument is in fact articulated by a large number of kinky people in their self-explanatory narratives. It is also used by both psychiatry and radical feminism to depict kink as a disorder that is at least symptomatic of social wrongs, if not wrong in and of itself. Likewise, it is used to question the consent claims of kinky people, by arguing that they are traumatized and therefore incompetent to give meaningful consent.

Given the popularity of this theory, and the considerable attention it has attracted over the years, the hard evidence for this etiology is rather weak. This is in large part due to the variety of operational definitions that are used in research on abuse, and other methodological difficulties in studying abuse in general (Sanderson 2006). In the United States, for instance, the range of published estimates for childhood abuse span a twelve-to-one ratio. The extreme values plausibly serve the purposes of those who wish to either downplay or exaggerate the prevalence of sexual abuse. More generally, though, they reflect the very wide range of possible abusive behavior, and wording of survey questions. “Were you raped as a child?” is a far narrower question than “Did your parents ever make you feel that you were no good?” But both those questions may ultimately be reduced to summary statistics on the prevalence of abuse, which are cited without further explanation. Similarly, different surveys focus on different age groups in defining childhood abuse, further blurring the statistics.

Gorey and Leslie (1997), in a metastudy of sixteen US reports, suggest a prevalence for child contact sexual abuse at 15% of girls and 7% of boys; figures cited in the popular media are usually a good bit higher (25% and 15% are common). Much higher figures are claimed by operationalizing broad definitions of emotional abuse, or by making currently unsupportable claims about the prevalence of sexual molestation.

Unfortunately, all of this creates a very poor environment for making comparisons between study groups. Unless a survey contains a control group being asked the same questions (which most kink surveys do not), it is hard to make much sense of abuse rates.

Direct Evidence

Richters et al (2008) is the only survey I am aware of that employs a control group in this regard. They find that Australian BDSM practitioners were slightly more likely to have “experienced sexual coercion” either before or after the age of 16, but that the difference with the control was statistically insignificant. In particular, their female respondents reported almost no difference at all for sexual coercion as children: 13.3% of non-kinky and 13.6% of kinky women. It is possible, of course, that respondents had been sexually abused in ways that they did not identify as coercive.

To my knowledge, the only other study that makes a direct comparison with general population figures (though not with a control group) is Nordling et al (2006). Their sample is a much smaller and almost entirely male group. They compare their own results with national data for Finland. They found that 8% of kinky men in their sample had experienced sexual abuse, while the nationwide rate was 1-3%. They also found that 23% of kinky women in their sample (which is to say, 5 out of 22) had experienced sexual abuse, while the nationwide rate is 6-8%. These results, especially for women, are obviously quite distinct from the Australian study.

Moving on to the United States, we have no studies with control groups, or which even make an effort to compare their question sets to national surveys. However, Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) found rates of childhood emotional, physical, and sexual abuse among kinky women to be 60%, 35%, and 44%, respectively. For kinky men, those figures were 32%, 17%, and 17%. Note that if we compare Bienvenu and Jacques' “sexual abuse” to Gorey and Leslie's figures for “contact sexual abuse,” we see rates 2-3 time higher in the kinky population than in the overall population: essentially the same ratios as the Finnish study.

Brame (2000) asked her subjects if there was “domestic violence of emotional abuse” in their family—not necessarily directed at the respondent—and 36% agreed that there was. Again, no comparison data is available.

Finally, Sanderson (2006, pp. 63, 366-367) claims an association between childhood sexual abuse and adult BDSM, on the basis of two studies: Lewis (1992) and Walsh and Rosen (1988). However, this claim is erroneous: neither of those studies refers to BDSM at all. The first is a paper on the neurotransmitters for aggression in humans and rodents, and the second is a monograph on self-harm.

Mechanisms and Indirect Evidence

If sexual abuse can produce kink, at least in some instances, how does it do so? One theory, dating back to Freud (1969 [1905]), is that survivors of abuse experience sexual guilt which may then be expressed as kinky sexuality. This was tested and rejected by Cross and Matheson (2006), who could not find any correlation between BDSM practice and sexual guilt. Perhaps, however, the kink replaces the guilt or trauma, as a sort of coping mechanism, so that the subjects do not continue to experience sexual guilt.

Another common theory is that sexual abuse survivors have diminished self-esteem which may lead them to become submissive. (Some texts even use “submissiveness” and “low-self-esteem” as interchangeable terms.) Cross and Matheson, again, reject any correlation in their study. Moreover, there is no direct evidence that those kinky people who are abuse survivors are, in fact, disproportionately submissives. Perhaps they are more apt to be dominant. None of the surveys mentioned above have asked this question.

A third possibility is that eroticization of sexual violence and coercion develops as a coping strategy for dealing with sexual abuse, and is then retained as a primary means of sexual expression. (Sanderson 2006 p. 58; Stein 2007 p. 70).

A final possibility is hypersexualization. A common finding in sexual abuse survivors is that they are more highly sexualized than their peers. (e.g. Saderson 2006 pp. 362-363). This is true for kinky people as well, even leaving kink as-such out of the picture. Perhaps for some abuse survivors, BDSM is simply an aspect of a hyper-exploratory sexual dynamic which in some way is a response to the abuse.

It is noteworthy that in several of these possible etiologies, the development of kink may play a survival role for the abused child. If that is the case, treating it is a pathology may not be indicated.

Conclusions

While the inconsistencies in these surveys are very substantial, and warrant more research, we can make some provisional conclusions. The largest, best-designed study rejects any connection, but some studies do suggest that childhood abuse survivors are up to three times more likely to be kinky as adults. The mechanism has not been closely examined, but is most likely some type of conditioning or coping strategy, rather than guilt or low self-esteem.

In all events, abuse is not a robust etiology for kink as a whole: in every study, large majorities of kinky people report not having been sexually abused, and in the largest study (and the only study with a direct control group) there is no association whatsoever. Finally, it is clear that most abuse victims do not become kinky: if kink can serve as a coping strategy for abuse, it is only one such possibility among many.

Future research in this area badly needs to distinguish between dominant and submissive roles, the nature of the abuse, and needs to utilize control groups or meaningful comparison population.

Updated 1/10/10

Prostitution and Kink Professionals

2010-01-03T06:00:00.000-08:00

Sex workers have often been the suppliers of last resort for non-normative sex acts, whether that means homosexuality, oral sex, or kink. Virtually all prostitution specializing in kink serves male masochistic or submissive fantasies. The sex workers involved often do not personally identify as sadists / dominants, and may not identify as prostitutes, either. By avoiding penetrative sex or other particular actions, BDSM for pay may skirt anti-prostitution laws in many jurisdictions, much as massage parlors do. Nevertheless, BDSM professionals overlap with prostitution, and may be seen as something of a lucrative sub-field, requiring expensive gear, more knowledge of specific fetishes, and a more complicated performance element. (Chapkis 1997) This industry has periodically faced legal attacks in its own right, and in some countries, like Germany, it is the locus of most of the legal cases involving BDSM (Various 2006).

Women who professionally specialized in sexual domination have existed since at least 1698, although originally they seem to have been hired ad hoc by organized groups of male clients. By the late 1700s, both pro-domme and pro-sub prostitutes existed in England and France (Shorter 2005). By the early1800s, entire brothels specializing in erotic flagellation are known to have existed, with major figures such as Mrs. Collet and Theresa Berkley in London achieving a degree of fame as pro-dommes. (Tannahill 1982, pp. 358-387) Kinsey reiterated in 1948 that prostitutes formed a major outlet for male masochists in his survey. In 1974, Stein calculated that 13% of all male customers to the call girls she was studying wanted to enact masochistic or submissive roles. Brame (2000) notes that 2% of her sample of kinky people were only out of the closet to sex workers. It is easy to imagine that for this group, being open about their sexuality in that context is part of the attraction, which Stein describes as quasi-therapeutic.

Submissive elements that are not explicitly seen as BDSM are fairly common in prostitution, if not standard. While professional submission and masochism does exist, it seems to be very uncommon, possibly because of safety concerns.

According to the Richters et al (2008), about 32% of kinky men have paid for sex (presumably including BDSM acts). This figure is almost twice the incidence of the non-kinky male population in their survey, and the difference is very significant. It also roughly matches the finding of Bienvenu and Jacques (1999), who find that 34% of kinky men have paid for sex, and 20% (probably a subset) have paid for BDSM acts. Bienvenu and Jacques also find that a surprisingly high 13% of kinky men have been paid for BDSM, while 9% have been paid for sex.

Richters et al do not seem to have asked the comparable question for kinky women, perhaps assuming that women never pay for sex. On the basis of Bienvenu and Jacques' study, however, this does not seem entirely warranted. They find that 1% of kinky women have paid for sex, while 2% had paid for BDSM acts. They also find that 12% of kinky women have been paid for sex, and 16% for BDSM acts. There is no data to compare this to the general population.

Finally, based on Bienvenu and Jacques data, about half of the kinky men who have paid for BDSM acts have done so only “rarely,” meaning considerably less than half the time. About three-quarters of kinky men who have paid for sex have done so “rarely.” This would confirm the suggestion that professional BDSM service is an industry focused on a relatively small number of devoted customers.

Updated 5/29/10

Innateness

2009-12-13T07:52:00.000-08:00

The idea that sadomasochistic tendencies are an “innate” condition is often attributed to Lipshutz (1979). However, it is present at the very dawn of research into kink, and is proposed by the subjects, not the researchers. In Kraft-Ebbing's correspondence with a heterosexual male masochist (Case 57), the anonymous subject lays out the case in his own words (p. 99, emphasis in the original):

“Masochism, according to my experience, is under all circumstances congenital, and never acquired by the individual. I know positively that I was never spanked; that my masochistic ideas were manifested from my earliest youth, and that, as long as I have been capable of thinking, I have had such thoughts. If the origin of them had been the result of a particular event, especially of a beating, I should certainly not have forgotten it. It is characteristic that the ideas were present before there was any libido. At that time the ideas were absolutely sexless.”

Sentiments like this seem to be a commonplace among kinky people themselves, as they are among homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals. There is a long history of sexual deviants, like Case 57, arguing that they have “always been that way.” As Freud acknowledges (1969 [1905]), this could be interpreted as meaning that sexuality is a genetic trait, or that it is acquired and fixed from “accidents” in the early learning process, or acquired from more specific events that the individual has later forgotten or repressed. Kinsey and Martin (1953, p. 645) restate this argument:

“Even some of the most extremely variant types of human sexual behavior may need no more explanation than is provided by our understanding of the process of learning and conditioning. Behavior which may appear bizarre, perverse, or unthinkably unacceptable to some persons, and even to most persons, may have significance for other individuals because of the way in which they have been conditioned. Flagellation, masochism, transvestism, and the wide variety of fetishes appear to be products of conditioning, fortified sometimes by some other aspect of an individual's personality and by inherent or acquired physiologic capacities.....”

I discuss the possibility of a genetic predisposition to kink elsewhere; currently there is no evidence for it. What is distinctive about the other possible claims for “innate” kink is that they present kink as effectively idiopathic, even though it is a learned behavior. If kink is produced by, for instance, a particular type of parenting, disclipline, or social structure@, then it would be feasible for society to intervene in this process (intentionally or unintentionally), raising or lowering the number of kinky people over time. The idea of innateness implies that kink is produced by unexceptional “accidents” in the learning process. This would be comparable to how food preferences and dislikes are probably learned. Such haphazard events would be much harder to predict, prevent, or promote than a specific causal factor. And since they would not be easily susceptible to any attempt at management, kink would be likely to re-occur under a range of political and cultural contexts.

From this point of view, “innate” kink is something of a null hypothesis. There is no direct evidence for it; the indirect evidence is the failure of other etiologies to provide a full explanation for the observations.

Other Etiological Theories

2009-12-07T20:38:00.000-08:00

Diet

The 19th-century French critic Hippolyte Taine believed that masochism ("the English vice") was caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol and red meat. (Tannahill 1982, p. 385). I do not believe that this theory has recieved any further attention.

Ignorance

Bradford (1989) argues that the etiology of paraphilia stems from inadequate sexual knowledge, which in turn produces sexual dysfunction (through ignorance) in normal sexual behavior, and drives the person deeper and deeper into abnormal behavior. This seems at odds with the empirical research on kink, which would suggest that kinky people have substantially more diverse sexual practices and experiences than their peers. Moreover, there is good evidence that kinky people do not experience unusually high levels of sexual dysfunction (Richters et al 2008)

However, such surveys were conducted on adults. It is still possible that Bradford's mechanism accurately describes a process by which young people become kinky, at which point they are no longer either sexually ignorant or dysfunctional. But there is no evidence for this.

Medical Problems

Stoller (1991, pp. 38-44) cites neurological literature attesting that certain medical conditions can cause either hypersexuality or change in sexual behavior, possibly including kink. These include epilepsy, postencephalitic Parkinson's disease (Von Economo's encephalitis), Klüver-Bucy syndrome, and Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. It should be stressed, though, that Stoller does not consider these to be a common avenue for kinky sexuality. The latter three are very rare conditions, and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that kink is associated with epilepsy or vice versa.

Atavism

The Jungian scholar Robert Eisler (1948) developed a theory of human evolution from an imagined species, Pithecanthropus frugivorous. P. frugivorous bifurcated into a passive, vegetarian subspecies, and an aggressive, cannibalistic subspecies that wore wolf skins and gave rise to legends about were-wolfs. Interbreeding between these two subspecies produced modern humans. Atavism towards the vegetarian hominid line produces masochism; atavism towards the cannibalistic line produces sadism. As evidence of the "werewolf" hominids that are the fore-runners of sadists, Eisler noted the skull of Piltdown man, debunked as a hoax five years after Eisler published.

Eisler's theories in this arena have not received much attention from other scholars.

Updated 1/16/11

Genetics as etiology

2009-12-07T19:49:00.000-08:00

The idea that there is a genetic predisposition to kink seems to be very old. Kraft-Ebbing suggests it (1965 [1903]), placing it within the general framework of “degeneracy” used by the eugenics movement of his era. Freud (1969 [1905]) acknowledges it as a possibility in at least some cases. It is also suggested seriously by Mass (1979), and Strauss (2001, p. 126) among others. It has never been tested, however, and there is no evidence in support of it. Rather, it seems to be a convenient explanation for highly deviant behavior. As Freud wrote: “it has become the fashion to regard any symptom which is not obviously due to trauma or infection as a sign of degeneracy.”

An important sub-category of this approach is the idea that kinky people have a neurologically different experience of pain than non-kinky people. This “wired differently” theory seems to be a widespread explanation among kinky people themselves. It is also proposed by Kraft-Ebbing and Mass, it is the explanation Tanahill (1982 p. 385) suggests, as well.

But this, too, is problematic. In the first place, the experience of pain within BDSM is very complex. As Weinberg (1987) points out, a great deal of BDSM involves no pain, or minimal pain; Bienvenu and Jacques suggest that about 9% of kinky people report no experience of pain-play. Moreover, we can generally assume that “different wiring” in this regard is not a major motive for sadists or tops who never switch (and who seem to account for around 20% of all kinky people). Finally, a large portion of BDSM scripts do not involve any immediate experience of pain: they revolve around domination and submission, humiliation, bondage, service, anticipation of pain, and the like.

The only study that I am aware of which investigates a genetic etiology for kink is Gosselin and Wilson (1980, pp. 115-116). They use a sexual fantasy survey comparing 14 pairs of identical twins with 14 pairs of fraternal twins. As the researchers point out, their sample size is too small to produce significant results. Nevertheless, they note a pattern where identical twins are more likely to have similar cross-dressing fantasy indices than fraternal twins. A (much weaker) pattern also exists for sadomasochistic fantasies, but for media-fetish fantasies, and an equivalent pattern is observed in the opposite direction: fraternal twins are more likely than identical twins to score similarly.

Gosselin and Wilson argue, optimistically, that these findings "adhere very well to theoretical explanations," since they believe fetishism to be based on conditioning. But this is fallacious: if there is no genetic component to fetishism, we should expect to see no difference between the scores for fraternal and identical twins. Moreover, there is no theoretical backing for the idea that fraternal twins should be more alike than identical twins, on any index. The fact that we do see this (for fetishism) calls into serious doubt all the other results of equivalent magnitude, which includes sadomasochism.

At best this leaves us a hint of evidence for what could only be a very partial explanation of kink. In the absence of further evidence, it is tempting to view this as what Plante (2006) calls a “stigma reduction tactic:” masochists are not psychologically deviant, it's simply that their body is constructed differently. Ergo, their desires are not “their fault.”

Radical Feminist Critique

Radical feminist authors strongly objected to the claim that BDSM proclivities (or indeed any sexual proclivities) had a genetic component. It is important to qualify this argument historically. At the time that the critical anthology Against Sadomasochism was published, most radical feminist thought in America asserted that lesbianism (even if closeted) was a political choice, a (partial) act of liberation from patriarchal structures; a “decolonialization of the body.” (Clarke 1981). For instance, Wagner (1982) suggests that homosexuality is a “freely chosen, emergent, and changing” sexuality. She considers claims of innateness to be abhorrent “biological determinism,” and cites Dworkin in calling this “the world's most dangerous and deadly idea.” Rian (1982) states that it is “analytically incorrect to assume that any sexual desire is an innately or psychologically given character trait, a fixed and unchanging part of one's personality.”

Updated 4/17/2011

Parenting (as etiology)

2009-12-07T09:28:00.000-08:00

As with all psychological or sexual conditions, it is widely claimed that kink has roots in the individual's family context. This approach emerges from psychoanalysis, though it is echoed in sociology. The concatenation of these theories is made complicated by the fact that psychoanalysis uses a much more general definition of "sadism" and "masochism," including "moral masochism" and other non-sexual concepts. Glickauf-Hughes and Wells (1991), for instance, referring to "masochism" in a very broad and normative sense: "a self-defeating way of loving and individuating." Oddly, Strauss (2001) cites this paper in a discussion of sexual masochism without distinguishing between the definitions.

In all events, Glickauf-Hughes analysis of moral masochism is quite comparably to Schad-Somers (1982) theory of the etiology of sexual sadomasochism based on erratic, self-absorbed parents who offer inconsistent praise and criticism. This potentially includes both persecution or "spoiling" the child. Kink results as a way for the child to re-enact and resolve these family dynamics.

Such studies, of course, lack serious empirical foundations. (Schad-Somers, for instance, uses a clinical sample of four people, all of whom have comorbid disorders, and she has no control group.) Moreover, the extremelly general nature of the proposed etiology embraces almost all versions of bad parenting, making this something of a shotgun approach.

There are a few studies of kink that do look at parenting styles.

Nordling et al (2006) report that, after controlling for sexual orientation, there is no discernible difference in parental attachment styles between kinky and non-kinky populations. However, Strauss (2001) finds that college students who had “warm parents” are less linkely to be masochistic, though his index variable is problematic.

Brame (2000) reports that the majority of her sample are “extremely or somewhat close” to both parents. 27% of the group describes their relationship with their mother as strained, estranged, or not applicable; 41% so describe their relationship with their father. Brame also reports that 36% of her sample grew up in houses where there was “domestic violence or emotional abuse, and 33% in families where there was drug or alcohol abuse or addictive behavior. However, there are no control variables in her study, so this does not leave us with much basis for comparison.

If kink is affected by parenting styles, it is presumably also affected by divorce. Coulter, for instance, is confident that kinky college students are the children of single mothers (Fox News 2006). Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) found that about 30% of kinky women and 17% of men feel that they came from a broken home. (A "broken home" can mean many things, but it's germance that between 1968 and 1978, about 17% of all children were being raised in non-dual-parent households. (US Census 2008)).

At this point, these findings are hard to assemble into any conclusion. More focused work has been done on child abuse@ and corporal punishment.

Updated 1/8/10

Commercial Pressure

2009-12-07T09:14:00.000-08:00

Nichols, Pagano, and Rossoff (1982) cite Schipper (1980) in arguing that the sex product industry (they consider toy a euphemism) is a massive source of profits, and that it uses sophisticated marketing to promote their products “and create a need for them.” Moreover, they argue that BDSM imagery is also used in marketing other products, pointing out that “major department stores have discovered that sadomasochistic themes or situations in their window displays lure customers.” Jeffreys (1990, p. 214) makes a comparable but more limited claim.

This seems to imply an etiological claim: kinky people develop their kink by succumbing to marketing pressure. I don't know how seriously these authors intended this explanation to be taken: it seems rather like an afterthought in the first essay mentioned. Moreover, Schipper's claim is that sex toys were a $100 million market in 1980, or roughly 0.001% of GDP. He puts the markup on sex toys at 50% to 300%, which is hardly exorbitant for a niche market. Most of this market, according to Schipper, consists of vibrators and the like: BDSM toys per se would seem to occupy a small fraction of it.

Weiss (2006) systematically reviews BDSM tropes in advertising. They are, increasingly, part of the vocabulary of advertising, but they still hardly seem large enough to conclude that this is a major vector for cultural transmission.

Corporal Punishment (as Etiology)

2009-12-07T09:00:00.000-08:00

Simulated corporal punishment (parental, academic, judicial, or otherwise) is a extremely common BDSM script, at least in the West. A number of kinky people have pointed to childhood experience with corporal punishment as a causal factor in making them kinky (e.g. Rousseau (1977) [1782]; Berest 1970). Others make it very clear that they were never physically punished (e.g. Krafft-Ebing, p. 99)

Tanahill (1982, p. 382) suggests that this explanation may be overdetermining, since corporal punishment was virtually universal in the West in the not-too-distant past, and kink seems to have always been fairly rare. Again, corporal punishment is an almost global phenomenon, whereas kink (and especially flagellation scripts, c.f. Comfort's introduction to Kokkoka, p. 67) seem to be more common in the developed world. Moreover, in Europe and North America if anything, kink is perceived as becoming more common with time (Wagner 1982) while corporal punishment has been declining, especially in institutional contexts.

It seems noteworthy that non-corporal techniques for parental and schoolroom discipline also feature prominently in D/s scripts. These include standing in the corner, writing lines, food deprivation, and loss of defined "privileges." Given that all of these are common subjects of BDSM interest, it seems possible that the ur-variable has more to do with power dynamics than the particular mode of punishment.

There are two relevant studies.

Moser and Levitt (1987) find that 18.6% of their sample of kinky people remember getting erotic enjoyment from childhood punishments. It is possible, of course, that such punishments might influence one's sexuality even if they were not enjoyed at the time. Unfortunately, there is no control here.

In a survey of college students, Strauss (2001) found a correlation between corporal punishment and the presence of any one of six indicators on his Masochist Sex Index (MSI). Of those students who had received the least corporal punishment (or none) 40%-46% had an MSI score of 1 or higher; of those students who had received the most corporal punishment, 71%-75% had a score of 1 or higher. This pattern is mitigated by a measure of “parental warmth.”

This survey is troubling in some respects, though. First and most glaringly, it is not evident that Strauss'es MSI is a good fit for actual masochism. The very high incidence of masochism that he found is consistent with his theory that (commonplace) corporal punishment causes deviance. But about two thirds of the total contributions to the MSI scores were respondents saying that they enjoyed actual or imagined rough sex. While this may form an interesting category of its own, it is not self-evident that this is the same as masochism per se. Moreover, only a very small percentage of Strauss'es sample (5% of men and 2-3% of women) enjoyed actual or imagined spanking. This would be the most direct evidence for an etiological theory based on spanking, but Strauss does not look at that correlation by itself. Finally, Strauss presents regression lines without data, and several mislabeled or inconsistently labeled charts.

My impression is that in his desire to demonstrate the evils of spanking, Strauss has tried to paint a corporal-punishment-to-masochism connection quite a bit stronger than really exists. Nevertheless, both of these studies would suggest that (1) childhood corporal punishment likely promotes kink, but (2) corporal punishment is neither necessary or sufficient to produce kink, and (3) the vast majority of children who were corporally punished do not become kinky.

Updated 6/23/2010

Self-Referral

2009-11-19T05:15:00.000-08:00

The DSM-IV notes that paraphiliacs “are rarely self-referred and usually come to the attention of mental health professionals only when their behavior has brought them into conflict with sexual partners or society.” The authors note that among paraphilics, sadists and masochists are especially unlikely to self-refer. (pp. 523-524)

Four studies give some shape to this claim. Spengler (1979) finds that 10% of kinky males in his sample have sought therapy or counselling to address their kink. Moser and Levitt (1987) put that figure at 16.1%. Brame (2000), using a much larger sample size, found only 7%. Kolmes et al (2006) find that 12% of kinky people who are already in therapy sought therapy because of their kink. Another 4% discovered they were kinky after going into therapy.

Updated 11/19/2009

Age of Onset

2009-11-18T20:30:00.000-08:00

The question of when kinky people became kinky (or first noticed they were kinky) is a complicated one. Adults might mis-remember the development of their sexuality, or retroactively identify things in ways that are different from the understandings they had at the time. Some people seem to become partially aware of kinky desires, but attempt to minimize their significance, or even actively combat that aspect of their personality.

Researchers have approached this question using a range of lenses, and the answers vary accordingly. In general, it seems that a fairly large group of kinky people become aware of themselves as kinky at or before adolescence. This point was noted in a case study by Krafft-Ebing a century ago (p. 99):

“my masochistic ideas were manifested from my earliest youth, and that, as long as I have been capable of thinking, I have had such thoughts.”

The DSM-IV maintains that sadism and masochism are typically present from a young age. However, questions like when someone “came out” or had the first experience that they identified as sadomasochistic tend to elicit later responses, with a mean age in the early 20s. There is also a general suggestion in most of these authors that people realize themselves to be heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual earlier than they realize they are kinky.

	Spengler	Moser and Levitt (1987)		Brame
	First Awareness	First Experience	Coming Out	Realization
up to 10	7%	12%	4%	24%
11-12	10%	4%	6%	24%
13-16	25%	10%	4%	34%
17	15%	9%	12%	34%
18-19	15%	9%	12%	23%
20-24	20%	22%	20%
25-26	12%	22%	22%
27-29	12%	22%	22%	14%
30-40	11%	21%	32%	14%
41-60				4%
61+				0.16%

Race and Nationality

2009-11-18T12:56:00.000-08:00

There are an abundance of personal narratives and general claims about the racial demography of kinky people. (Norris (1982), for instance, writes "I don't see many blacks into such shit as sadomasochism.") Most other purposive studies to date seem to have been conducted on largely white samples, but this may simply reflect opportunistic sampling and the inability of white researchers to gain the trust of non-white sexual minorities.

Similar comments could be made about many subcultures, but kink is an exceptional case in this regard, because of its own racialized vocabulary and attendant charges of racism@. Such discussions typically imply that BDSM is a predominantly (or exclusively) white field: a “white women's problem.” (Sims, Mason, and Pagano 1982)

However, the empirical information we have on the topic is very sparse. Oddly, neither Brame (2000) nor Bienvenue and Jacques (1999), nor Richters et al (2008) asked any questions about race in surveys large enough to make significant comparisons. This left us with little information to go on.

Moser and Levitt (1987), reported that their sample was 95% white (compared to roughly 75% nationwide in the US). However, their sampling methods leave this figure open to doubt. While Richters et al (2008), did not ask respondents about race, they did ask a significant proxy question: language spoken at home. In Australia, in round numbers, 20% of non-English speakers are Asian and another 20% are Middle Eastern. There is a (non-significant) non-correlation between language group and BDSM practice. All we can conclude from this is that if Asians and Middle Easterners living in Australia are markedly less likely to be kinky, the Richters study did not notice that fact.

Tomassilli et al (2009) have, as they've noted, bucked this trend. They used an urban sample of lesbian and bisexual women that was 47% women of color, predominantly Latina and African American. Using four categories of kinky behavior, they only found one significant association: the women of color were less likely than white women to have ever practiced bondage and domination (28% to 38%). In the other categories (including SM) there were no significant associations by race.

National Comparisons

Various (2006) contains reports about BDSM scenes from Austria, Brazil, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland. Ranai (2009) lists BDSM forums in the following non-English languages or regions: German (19), Russia (10), the Netherlands and Belgium (9), France and Francophone regions (8), Sweden (8), Spain, Argentina, and Latino US groups (6), Iceland (6), Italy (5), Brazil and Portugal (4), Norway (4), Denmark (3), Finland (3), Turkey (3), Bulgaria (2), Indonesia (2), the Ukraine (2), and also in Belarus, China, the Czeck Republic, Greece, Israel, and Japan.

The predominance of Germany, Scandinavia, and the former USSR may be an artifact of Ranai's research. She is German and did not intend to present a methodical survey. On the other hand, much of early kink research comes from Scandinavia and Germany, and there is some reason to think that kinky people had formed organizations in those regions earlier than elsewhere.

Finally, there is evidence for sadomasochistic sexual behavior in a variety of indigenous societies.

Updated 5/15/2010

Acronyms and Abbreviations

2009-11-11T05:39:00.000-08:00

APA   American Psychological Association

BDSM     An ambiguous acronym. Usually “Bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism,” but sometimes “Bondage, dominance, submission, [sadism], masochism” or similar.

DCI    Desirability of Control Inventory

DPQ    Differential Personality Questionnaire

DSM   Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

D/S (Or D/s)   Dominance and Submission.

EPI Eysenck Personality Inventory

F/m    Female-dominant, male-submissive

ICD    International Classification of Diseases

ICMI    Inventory of Childhood Memories and Imaginings

IPI   Imaginal Processes Inventory

LOC Locus of Control [Scale]

M/f    Male-dominant, female-submissive

NCSF   National Coalition for Sexual Freedom

RPI   Role-Playing Inventory

RSES Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

SBI   Sexual Behaviors Inventory

SCL-90-R   Symptoms Checklist 90 (Revised)

SM Sadomasochism

SMB Self-mutilative behavior

WHO   World Health Organization

Last edited 1/8/10

Welcome to Kink Research...

2009-10-31T17:33:00.000-07:00

....it's still very much under construction. Many more topics on the way.

Getting Started:

Introduction ~~~ Bibliography ~~~ Acronyms and Abbreviations

Demographics of Kink:

Prevalence ~~~ Gender~~~ Sexual Orientation ~~~ Kink Roles ~~~ "Best guess" ~~~ Education ~~~ Religion ~~~ Politics ~~~ Race and Nationality ~~~ Urban/Rural

Psychology of Kink

Nosology ~~~ Psychological Correlates ~~~ Self-Referral ~~~ Treatment ~~~ Recovery

Notes on Specific Texts

Janus Report

Other

Relationships ~~~ Stigma ~~~ Pain ~~~ Racism ~~~ Theories of Kink Roles ~~~ Prostitution ~~~ Self-Harm

Bibliography

2009-10-31T17:18:00.000-07:00

Note: Items in red are books or papers that I haven't personally read, which I want to disclose because I am citing them in the text. Items in green are books or papers that I've read, but have not yet cited in an article on this blog.

Abel, Gene G.; Joanne-L Rouleau; Jerry Cunningham-Rathner (1986) “Sexually Aggressive Behavior” In Curran, McGarry & Shah, editors (1989) pp. 289-313.

Alison, L., Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N. K.,& Nordling, N. (2001). "Sadomasochistically oriented behavior: Diversity in practice and meaning." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30 pp. 1-12.

Atkinson, Ti-Grace (1982) [1975] “Why I'm Against S/M Liberation” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 91-92

American Psychological Association (1980) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition. Washington, American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychological Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Washington, American Psychiatric Association.

Baumeister, R. F. (1988a). "Masochism as escape from self." Journal of Sex Research 25, pp. 28-59.

Baumeister, R. F. (1988b) "Gender differences in masochistic scripts." Journal of Sex Research 25, pp. 478-499.

Beigel, Hugo G. (1966) Book Review. The Journal of Sex Research 2 (2), pp. 147-149.

Berest, Joseph J. (1970) "Report on a case of sadism" The Journal of Sex Research 6 (3) pp. 210-219.

Berlin, Fred S.; John Money; Gregory K. Lehne (1993) "Antiandrogen plus Counseling in the Treatment of Paraphilias." The Journal of Sex Research 19 (2), pp. 201-202.

Bienvenu, Robert (1998) The Development of Sadomasochism as a Cultural Style in the Twentieth-Century United States. Accessed from http://americanfetish.net/sexresearch.us/Dissertation.html on 10/29/09.

Bienvenue, Robert; Trevor Jacques (1999) Patterns of Development and Practice in Today's BDSM Subcultures: Results from a survey of SM practioners. http://www.sexresearch.com/SSSS/PDFs/SSSS_AASECT_1999_B_Jacques.pdf Accessed August 8, 2009.

Bradford, John McDonald Wilson (1989) “The Treatment of Sexual Deviation Using a Pharmacological Approach” Journal of Sex Research 37 (3), p. 248-257.

Brame, Gloria (2000) BDSM/Fetish Demographics Survey Results. http://gloria-brame.com/therapy/bdsmsurveyresults.html, accessed August 8, 2009.

Braudy, Leo; Marshall Cohen. (1999) Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, George R.; Thomas N. Wise; Paul T. Costa; Jeffery H. Herbst; Peter J. Fagan; Chester W. Schmidt. (1996) “Personality Characteristics and Sexual Functioning of 188 Cross-Dressing Men.” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 184 (5) pp. 265-273.

Brownmiller, Susan (1990) [1975] Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York, Bantam.

Breslow, N.; L. Evans; J. Langley (1985) “On the prevalence and role of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: report of an empirical study.” Archives of Sexual behavior 14, pp. 303-317. {I have not read this. It is discussed in Levitt et al (1994)}

Bryant, Clifton (1982) Sexual Deviancy and Social Proscription. Human Sciences Press, New York.

Canada (1984) Report of the Committee on Sexual Offenses against Children and Youths. Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services Canada. {I have not read this. It is discussed in Fisher and Barak (1991)}

Chapkis, Wendy (1997) Lives Sex Acts, Routledge, New York

Cross, Patricia A.; Kim Matheson (2006) "Understanding Sadomasochism: An Empirical Examination of Four Persepctives." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2) pp. 133-166.

Clarke, Cheryl (1981) "Lesbianism: An Act of Resistance", in Moraga and Anzaldúa, pp. 128-137

Cowan et al. (1988) __________, Psychology of Women Quarterly. 12, pp. 299-311. {I have not read this. It is discussed in Fisher and Barak (1991)}

Curran, William J.; A. Louis McGarry; Saleem A. Shah, editors (1989) Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology: Perspectives and Standards for Interdiscliplinary Practice. F. A. Davis, Philadelphia.

Dancer, Peter L.; Peggy J. Kleinplatz; Charles Moser (2006) "24/7 SM Slavery." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2) pp. 81-101.

Davis, L.J. (1997) “The Encyclopedia of Insanity — A Psychiatric Handbook Lists a Madness for Everyone.” Harpers, February 1997. Accessed from http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~rbell/EncyclopediaOfInsanity.html.gz on 10/28/09.

Dengrove, Edward (1967) "Behavior Therapy of the Sexual Disorders." The Journal of Sex Research 3 (1), pp. 49-61.

Dejanikus, Tacie. (1982) “Charges of exclusion and McCarthyism at Barnard conference.” Off Our Backs. 12 (6). Accessed from http://www.geocities.com/wikispace/oob.1982a.html on 10/29/09.

DSMI-III (See APA 1980)

DSM-IV (See APA 1994)

Doyle, Laura (2001) The Surrendered Wife. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Dworkin, Andrea (1987) Intercourse. Macmillan, New York.

Eisler, Robert (1948) Man into Wolf. Spring Books, London.

Ellis, Havelock (1942) [1905] Studies in the Psychology of Sex. Random House, New York.

Farley, Mellissa (1993) "Ten Lies about Sadomasochism." Sinister Wisdom 50 Summer/Fall pp. 29-37. From http://www.mediawatch.com/wordpress/?p=21, accessed September 20, 2009.

Fisher, William A.; Azy Barak (1991) "Pornography, Erotica, and Behavior: More Quetions than Answers." International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, pp. 47-64.

Ford, Clellan S.; Frank A Beach. (1951) Patterns of Sexual Behavior. Harper and Brothers, New York(?)

Foucault, Michel (1998) [1976-1984] The History of Sexuality. London, Penguin.

Fox News (2006) "The Big Story w/Gibson and Nauert: Report: X-Rated Behavior at Columbia University." 11/29/06 Accessed from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,232859,00.html on 10/29/09.

Franks, Cyril M. (1967) “Reflections upon the Treatment of Sexual Disorders by the Behavioral Clinician: An Historical Comparison with the Treatment of the Alcoholic. The Journal of Sex Research, 3 (3), pp. 212-222.

Freud, Sigmund (1969) [1905] Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. (Translated and edited by James Strachey) New York, Basic Books.

Garrity, Jane (2000): Mediating the Taboo: The Straight Lesbian Gaze in Thomas, ed. 2000 pp. 191-231.

Gebhard, Paul H. (1976) [1969] “Fetishism and Sadomasochism” In Weinberg, ed. (1976) pp. 156-166.

Gebhard, Paul H.; John W. Gagnon; Wardell B. Pomeroy; Cornelia V. Christenson (1965) Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types. Harper and Row, New York.

Glickauf-Hughes, Cheryl; Marolyn Wells (1991) "Current conceptualizations on masochism: Genesis and object relations." American Journal of Psychotherapy, 45 (1) pp. 69-77.

Gorey, Kevin M.; Leslie, Donald R. (1997) “The prevalence of child sexual abuse: Integrative review adjustment for potential response and measurement biases” Child Abuse and Neglect 21 (4) pp. 391-398 {I have only seen the conclusions and summary statistics of this article}

Gosselin, Chris; Glenn Wilson (1980) Sexual Variations. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Greene, Gerald; Carloine Greene (1974) S-M: The Last Taboo. New York, Grove Press. {I have not read this. It is reviewed in Sagarin (1976)}.

Haidt, Jonathan; Sylvia Helena Koller; Maria G. Dias (1993). "Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat you dog?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, pp. 613-628.

Hamilton, G. V. (1929) A research in marriage. New York. Boni. {I have not read this. The conclusions are summarized in Moser and Levitt (1987)}

Harris, Elizabeth (1982) “Sadomasochism: A Personal Experience” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 93-95.

Hariton, E. (1973) Women's fantasies during sexual intercourse with their husbands: a normative study with tests of personality and theoretic models. Unpublished dissertation, CUNY. UM # 73-2839. {I have not read this. The conclusions are summarized in Moser and Levitt (1987)}

Hart, Lynda (1998), Between the Body and the Flesh. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hawton, Keith; James, Anthony (2005) "ABC of Adolescence [Part 10]: Suicide and deliberate self harm in young people." British Medical Journal 330 pp. 891-894. Accessed from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7496/891?ehom on 1/8/2010.

Hoagland, Sarah L. (1982) “Sadism, Masochism, and Lesbian-Feminism” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 153-163.

Holmberg, Allan R. (1950) Nomads of the long bow; the Siriono of eastern Bolivia. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Dept. of State as a project of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

Hunt, M. (1974) Sexual behavior in the 1970s. Chicago: Playboy press. {I have not read this. The conclusions are summarized in Moser and Levitt (1987)}

ICD-10 (See WHO 1992)

Janus, Samuel S.; Janus, Cynthia L. (1994). Janus Report On Sexual Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Jeffreys, Sheila (1990) Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution. New York University Press, New York.

Jonel, Marissa (1982) “Letter from a former Masochist” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 16-22.

Kant, Harold S. (1971) "Exposure to Pornography and Sexual Behavior in Deviant and Normal Groups". Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy, 17 #2, pp. 5-17.

Keres, Jad (1994) Violence Against S/M Women Within the Lesbian Community: A Nation-Wide Survey. Female Trouble, Philadelphia. From http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_keyword&id=214, accessed October 31, 2009.

Kilmann, Peter R.; Robert F. Sabalis; Milton L. Gearing, II; Lee H. Bukstel; Albert W. Scovern (1982) "The Treatment of Sexual Paraphilias: A Review of the Outcome Research." The Journal of Sex Research, 18 (3), pp. 193-252.

Kinsey, Alfred C.; Clyde E. Martin. (1953) Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Kinsey, Alfred C.; Wardell B. Pomeroy; Clyde E. Martin. (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Klein, Marty; Charles Moser (2006) "SM (Sadomasochistic) Interests as an Issue in a Child Custody Proceeding" Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2) pp. 233-242.

Kokkoka (1964) [12th c.] The Koka Shastra. Translated and introduced by Alex Comfort. Stein and Day, New York.

Kolmes, Keely; Wendy Stock; Charles Moser (2006) "Investigating bias in psychotherapy with BDSM clients" Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2-3) pp. 301-324.

Krafft-Ebing, Richard von (1965) [1903] Psychopathia Sexualis. (Translated by Franklin Klaf) Arcade, New York.

Kutchinsky, Berl (1991). "Pornography and Rape: Theory and Practice? Evidence from Crime Data in Four Countries Where Pornography is Easily Available". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 14, pp. 47-64.

Lee, J. A. (1979). "The social organization of sexual risk." Alternative Lifestyles 2 (1), 69-100.

Levitt, E. E., Moser, C.; Jamison, K. V. (1994). "The prevalence and some attributes of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: A second report." Archives of Sexual Behavior 23, pp. 465-473.

Lewis, Dorothy Otnow (1992) "From Abuse to Violence: Psychophysiological Consequences of Maltreatment." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 31 (3) pp. 383-391.

Linden, Robin Ruth; Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. H. Russell; Susan Leigh Star, editors (1982) Against Sadomasochism. Frog in the Well, San Frascisco

Lipshutz, Barbara (1979) "Cathexis: A Preliminary Investigation into the Nature of S-M" in What Color is Your Handkerchief? Samois, San Fransisco. {I have not read this article. It is quoted at many points in Linden 1982.}

Lourde, Audre; Susan Leigh Star (1982) “Interview with Audre Lourde” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 66-71.

Lugaila, Terry A. (1999) Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998 (Update) US Census, Washington. Accessed from http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p20-514.pdf on 10/29/09.

Malamuth, Neil M.; Barry Spinner (1980) "A Longitudinal Content Analysis of Sexual Violence in the Best-Selling Erotic Magazines" The Journal of Sex Research, 16 (3) pp. 226-237.

Malinowski, Bronislaw (1966)[1922] Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Martin, Barry A. (1985) “The Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis” In Webster, Aron, and Hucker, eds. (1985) pp. 65-86.

Marshall, W. L. (1988) "The use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapists, child molestors, and non-offenders." Journal of Sex Research, 25, pp. 267-288.

Mass, L. (1979). "Coming to grips with sadomasochism." The Advocate, April 5, pp. 18-22. {I have not read this article. It is discussed in Weinberg (1987)}

Matheson, Kim (1996) The Matheson Feminist Attitudes Scale. Unpublished. Carleton university, Ottawa. {I have not read this article. It is mentioned in Cross and Matheson (2006)}

Media Matters (2008) "Savage linked San Francisco event to the “artistes” and “leather fetishists” of Weimer-era Germany, whom he blamed for Hitler's rise.” 9/30/08, Accessed from http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/200809300015 on 10/29/09.

Meyer-Bahlburg, Heino F.L. (1980) Book review. The Journal of Sex Research, 16 (2) pp. 182-183.

Money, John (1970) "Use of an Androgen-Depleting Hormone in the Treatment of Male Sex Offenders." The Journal of Sex Research, 6 (3), pp. 165-172.

Money, John (1987) "Masochism: On the childhood origin of paraphilia, Opponent-Process Theory, and antiandrogen therapy." The Journal of Sex Research, 23 (2), pp. 273-275.

Moraga, Cherríe; Gloria Anzaldúa (editors) (1981) This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Kitchen Table, New York

Moser, Charles; Peggy J. Kleinplatz (2005). "DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: An argument for removal." Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17(3/4), pp. 91-109.

Moser, Charles; Peggy J. Kleinplatz (2006) "Introduction: The State of Our Knowledge on SM" Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2), 1-15.

Moser, Charles; E. E. Levitt (1987). "An exploratory-descriptive study of a sadomasochistically oriented sample." Journal of Sex Research 23, pp. 322-337.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” (1973) In Braudy and Cohen, eds. 1999 pp. 833-44.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) (2008) DSM Revision White Paper. From http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_keyword&id=305, accessed October 31, 2009.

Nichols, Margaret (2006) "Psychotherapeutic Issues with “Kinky” Clients: Clinical Problems, Yours and Theirs" Journal of Homosexuality 50 (2-3) pp. 281-300.

Nichols, Jeanette; Darlene Pagano; Margaret Rossof (1982) "Is Sadomasochism Feminism?" in Linden et al., eds. pp. 137-146.

Nordling, Niklas; N. Kenneth Sandnabba; Pekka Santtila; Laurence Alison (2006) "Differences and Similarities Between Gay and Straight Individuals Involved in the Sadomasochistic Subculture" Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2) pp. 41-57.

Norris, Maryel (1982) An Opinionated Piece on Sadomasochism” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 106-108.

Paglia, Camille (1998) “Enough with the 'male gaze'! Salon.com. Accessed from http://www.salon.com/it/col/pagl/1998/10/07pagl.html on 3/25/11.

Palys, T. S. (1984) A content analysis of Sexually Explicit Videos in British Columbia. Report 15, Working Papers on Pornography and Prostitution. Ottawa: Department of Justice. {I have not read this. It is discussed in Kutchinsky (1991)}

Plante, Rebecca F. (2006) "Sexual Spanking, The Self, and the Construction of Deviance." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2) pp. 59-79.

Playboy (1976) "What's really happening on campus." October Issue. pp. 128-131, 160-164, 169. (I have not read this. It is discussed in Moser and Levitt 1987}

Polston, Pamela; Paula Routly, and readers (2010) “Flannel Flap” in Seven Days, accessed from the web at http://www.7dvt.com/2010american-apparel-ad on 2/25/11.

Rachman, S.; R. J. Hodgson (1968) "An Experimental Model of Sexual Fetishism" Psychological Record 18 (1) pp. 25-27.

Ranai (2009) Kink Resources Long List. From http://ranai.wordpress.com/bdsm-fetish-international-resources/, accessed September 25, 2009.

Ray, J.J. (1972) “A New Balanced F Scale, and Its Relation to Social Class.” Australian Psychologist, 7 (3) pp. 155-166. Accessed from http://jonjayray.tripod.com/newbf.html on 10/29/09.

Reiersøl, Odd; Svein Skeid (2006) "The ICD diagnoses of fetishism and sadomasochism." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2) pp. 243-262.

Rian, Karen (1982) "Sadomasochism and the Social Construction of Desire" In Linden et al, eds., pp. 45-50.

Richters, Juliet; Richard O. de Visser, Chris E. Rissel, Andrew E. Grulich, Anthony M.A. Smith (2008) “Demographic and Psychosocial Features of Participants in Bondage and Discipline, "Sadomasochism" or Dominance and Submission (BDSM): Data from a National Survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine 5 (7) pp. 1660-1668.

Ridinger, Robert B. (2006) "Negotiating Limits: The Legal Status of SM in the United States." Journal of Homosexuality, 50:2 pp. 189-216.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1977) [1782] Confessions. Penguin, New York

Sagarin, Edward (1976) Book Review. The Journal of Sex Research, 12 (1), pp. 77-78.

Sanderson, Christine (2006) Counselling Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse, 3rd Edition. Jessica Kingley Publishers, London

Schad-Somers, Susanne P. (1982) Sadomasochism, Etiology and Treatment. Human Sciences Press, New York.

Schipper, Henry (1980) "Filthy Lucre" Mother Jones 5 (3) pp. 60-61 et seq.

Shorter, Edward (2005) Written in the Flesh: A history of Desire. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Sims, Karen; Rose Mason; Darlene R. Pagano (1982) “Racism and Sadomasochism: A Conversation with Two Black Lesbians” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 99-105.

Smith, ____ (1976) "The Social Content of Pornography" Journal of Communication 26, 16-24. {I have not read this. It is discussed in Winick (1985)}

Soble, ____ (1986) Pornography, Marxism, Feminism, and the Future of Society. {I have not read this. It is discussed in Kutchinsky (1991)}

Spanos, N.P.; S. Dubreuil (1991) Sexual Beliefs Scale. Unpublished. Carleton University, Ottawa. {I have not read this. It is mentioned in Cross and Matheson (2006)}

Spengler, A. (1979). Sadomasochisten und ihre Subkulturen. Frankfurt, West Germany, Campus Verlag. {I have not been able to find this book. It is reviewed in Meyer-Bahlburg (1980), and the conclusions are cited in many other papers.}

Star, Susan Leigh (1982) “Swastikas: The Street and the University” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 131-136.

Stearman, Allyn MacLean (c1987) No longer nomads: the Siriono revisted. Hamilton Press, Lanham MD.

Stein, Abby (2007) Prologue to Violence: Child Abuse, Dissociation, and Crime. The Analytic Press, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Stein, Martha (1974) Lovers, Friends, Slaves... the Nine Male Sexual Types, Their Psycho-Sexual Transactions with Call Girls. New York, Berkley Publishing. {I have not read this. It is reviewed in Wollman (1975), and the conclusions are also discussed in Moser and Levitt (1987)}

Stekel (1953) [1929] Sadism and Masochism: The Psychology of Hatred and Cruelty (English Version by Louise Brink) Horace Liverwright, New York. {I have not read this.}

Stoller, Robert J. (1975) Perversion. Random House, New York.

Stoller, Robert J. (1991) Pain & Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores the World of S&M. Plenum, New York.

Stoltenberg, John (1982) [1979] "Sadomasochism: Eroticized Violence, Eroticized Powerlessness." In Linden et al. (eds.) pp. 124-130.

Strauss, M. A. (2001) Beating the Devil out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and its Effects on Children. Transactions Pubishers, New Brunswick, NJ. Largely online at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP-Empirical.htm.

Sue, David (1979) "Erotic Fantasies of College Students During Coitus" Journal of Sex Research. 15 (4) pp. 299-305.

Tanahill, Reay (1982) Sex in History. Scarborough House, New York(?)

Thomas, Calvin, ed. (2000) Straight With a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality

University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Tomassilli, Julia; Sarit A. Golub; David S. Bimbi; Jeffrey T. Parsons. (2009) "Behind Closed Doors: An Exploration of Kinky Sexual Behaviors in Urban Lesbian and Bisexual Women" Journal of Sex Research, Sep-Oct.

Ullerstam, Lars (1966) The Erotic Minorities (translated by Anselm Hollo). Grove Press, New York, 1966. {I have not read this. Reviewed in Beigel (1966)}

United States Census Bureau (2008) Families and Living Arrangements, table CH-1. On the web at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html, accessed 12/7/2009.

Usul of the Blackfoot (2009) Liberating Ourselves in the Boudoir: An Anarchist-Feminist Perspective Against BDSM. Accessed from http://zinelibrary.info/files on 7/18/2010.

Various (2006) "SM International." Journal of Homosexuality, May 2006 50 (2) pp. 263-280.

Wagner, Sally Roesch (1982) "Pornography and the Sexual Revolution: The Backlash of Sadomasochism." in Linden et al., eds. pp. 23-44.

Walker, Alice (1982) [1981] “A Letter of the Times, or Should This Sado-Masochism be Saved?” in Linden et al., eds. pp. 205-209

Walsh, B.W.; Rosen, P.M. (1988) Self-Mutilation: Theory, Research, and Treatment. New York, Guilford Press.

Webster, Christopher D.; Mark H. Ben-Aron; Stephen J. Hucker, editors (1985) Dangerousness: Probability and Prediction, Psychiatry and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Weinberg, Martin S., editor. (1976) Sex Research: Studies from the Kinsey Institute. Oxford Univerity Press, New York.

Weinberg, Thomas S. (1987) "Sadomasochism in the United States: A review of Recent Sociological Literature" The Journal of Sex Research, 23 (1) pp. 50-69.

Weinberg, Thomas S. (2006) "Sadomasochism and the Social Sciences: A review of the Sociological and Social Psychological Literature." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2), pp. 17-40.

Weinberg, Martin S.; Colin J. Williams; Charles Moser (1984) “The Social Constituents of Sadomasochism.” Social Problems, 31 (4), pp. 379-389.

Weiner, Annette B. (1987) The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York.

Weiss, Margot D. (2006) "Mainstreaming Kink: The Politics of BDSM Representation in Popular Media." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2) pp. 103-132.

White, Cris (2006) "The Spanner Trial and the Changing Law on Sadomasochism in the UK." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2), pp. 167-187.

WHO 1992 The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioral Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. World Health Organization, Geneva.

Winick, Charles (1985) "A content Analysis of Sexually Explicit Magazines Sold in an Adult Book Store." Journal of Sex Research 21 (2), pp. 206-210.

Wise, Thomas N.; Peter J. Fagan; Chester W. Schmidt; Yula Ponticas; Paul T. Costa (1991) “Personality and Sexual Functioning of Transvestitic Fetishists and Other Paraphilics” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disesase 179 (11) pp. 694-698 {I have only been able to read the abstract of this paper}

Wollman, Leo (1975) Book Review. The Journal of Sex Research, 11 (4), pp. 365-366.

Woody, Robert H. (1973) "Integrated Aversion Therapy and Psychotherapy: Two Sexual Deviation Case Studies." The Journal of Sex Research, 9 (4), pp. 313-324.

Wright, Susan (National Coalition for Sexual Freedom) (2006) "Discrimination of SM-Identified Individuals." Journal of Homosexuality, 50 (2), pp. 217-231.

Young, Robet; Sweeting, Helen; West, Patrick (2006) "Prevalence of deliberate self harm and attempted suicide within contemporary Goth youth subculture: longitudinal cohort study." British Medical Journal 332 pp. 1058-1061. Accessed from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/332/7549/1058 on 1/8/2010.

Updated 4/17/2011.

Gender Profile

2009-10-31T16:58:00.000-07:00

Although Kinsey and his colleagues were looking at sadomasochist behavior in women as early as 1953, most early empirical research on BDSM focused on gay men. To a large extent the culture of contemporary BDSM seems to have been derived from the gay leather scene in the mid-20th century (Bienvenu 1998). This focus probably led early researchers to assume that kinky sexualities were a largely male domain.

As lesbian and heterosexual kink was “discovered” and subsequently critiqued as an expression of patriarchy in the 1970s, the question of women's involvement in kink became an especially political one. Lesbian BDSM was an ongoing controversy within NOW since as early as 1971 (Wright 2006). As late as 1979, Spengler could suggest that few or no women were involved in BDSM unless they were pressured to do so by male partners, and Lee (1979) cites a leaflet in which lesbian 'spokeswomen' in 1978 writes “S/M is a male perversion. There are no lesbians into S/M.” Subsequent studies within kinky populations (e.g. Moser and Levitt 1987) often found a preponderance of men, at ratios of four to one or more. However, the secular trend of the research is to discover more and more women involved in kink than was previously believed (Weinberg 2006). To some extent, this is surely a product of better methodologies, as Richters et al (2008) suggest.

It is also possible, however, that the number of women involved in kink has increased in the last thirty years. (This would be consistent with the Richters et al (2008) finding that younger women are significantly more likely to be kinky than older women, whereas for men there is no such skew.) The same pattern is found for lesbians and bisexual women in Tomassilli et al (2009), and they discuss it explicitly in terms of kink's changing level of acceptability within the lesbian community. Alternatively, it is possible that a differntially high number of women who are at some point kinky stop being kinky; this seems to be the case for female sadists.

In all events, the gender discrepancies between convenience samples of kinky people and population surveys are so significant that it seems certain that there is a bias towards male voices in the former. Surveys aimed at BDSM clubs or internet samples, perhaps especially, appear to turn up disproportionately more kinky men than kinky women. It also seems likely that certain discourse-analysis techniques (e.g. those based on pornography) are biased by male authors who adopt female pseudonyms to write. (Baumeister 1988b)

As usual, the most robust data we have comes from Richters and her colleagues survey in Australia. This population survey finds a ratio of 7:10, with men slightly predominating. The DSM-IV maintains that the gender ratio for masochism is 1:20, though they provide no citation for this rather outrageous claim (p. 524).

Brame's online survey, with 6997 responses, (2000) finds a biological sex ratio of about 7:9, which seems consistent with Richters and colleagues. She also asked about gender orientation, which most other studies on BDSM have not. She found that 1.9% of her entire sample were MTF transgendered, and 0.39% were FTM.

Updated 5/15/2010

A Best Guess at the Demographics

2009-10-31T16:37:00.000-07:00

One of the most common sources of factual debate within BDSM discussions is the relative breakdown of tops and bottoms, men and women, gay, straight, and bisexual kinky people. Unfortunately, in the past no single study of kink combined the broad survey methods needed to answer these questions with the question sets themselves. Moreover, the role of transgendered and genderqueer persons in kink does not seem to have been a focus of surveys to date.

First Attempt: Combining Previous Studies

What follows is a very provisional “best guess” at these ratios. It begins with the gender ratios found by Brame (2000) and then confirmed by Richters et al (2008). I've then overlaid the statistics for kink roles and sexual orientation from a number of other studies, relying heavily on Bienvenu and Jacques (1999). Since there are no consensus figures here, this is a very imprecise, unscientific process. Nevertheless, it seemed useful to include it here since it is the closest approximation at present to a widely sought-after result.

Imagine one hundred randomly selected kinky people, placed on a five-point scale of bottom-to-top-ness, and a seven-point Kinsey scale. We get a breakdown roughly as follows. The first number in each cell represents women, the second men.

	Bottom		Switch		Top
Heterosexual	2/5	3/7	2/6	1/4	2/6
	2/2	4/3	3/3	2/2	3/2
	1/0	2/0	2/0	1/0	1/0
Bisexual	0/0	1/0	1/0	1/0	1/0
	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
	0/1	1/1	1/1	1/1	1/1
Homosexual	0/2	1/3	1/3	0/2	1/3

Some observations, which obviously need to be treated very skeptically, emerge from these numbers.

The modal person involved in kink is a straight male who mainly identifies as a bottom, followed by straight male switches and heterosexual male tops.

Straight men who always or mainly bottom outnumber their choice of partner (straight women who always or mainly top) by more than three to one.

The same is not true for straight women. Straight men who always or mainly top outnumber straight women who always or mainly bottom by two to one.

It follows that—all else being equal—women should have a relatively easy time finding an M/f relationship, while men should have a relatively difficult time finding an F/m relationship. This seems to be consistent with most narratives by kinky people.

There are a number of gay or largely gay kinky men, and a number of largely straight kinky men who have some attraction to other men. However, the mid-range of bisexuality for kinky males is almost unoccupied.

The numbers for lesbians are so scarce, and so confusing, that we really can't draw any conclusions.

There is "bisexual valley" at Kinsey 5. Almost no one seems to identify as just-a-little-gayer-than-bi.

Classical Sexual Orientation

2009-10-31T16:34:00.000-07:00

There is considerable evidence that kinky people are more apt to be non-heterosexual, at least in some degree (Kinsey scales 2-7), than the surrounding population. Indeed, this classical version of “sexual orientation” may even be subordinated to D/s orientation. Some kinky people who would be etically identified as bisexual describe their sexuality as, for instance, “submissive,” and explicitly disavow any partner-gender orientation. Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser (2006), writing about 24/7 slaves, point out: “There were two male respondents [3% of sample] who self-identified as heterosexual, yet their questionnaires indicated that their owners were male and that their sexual contact was exclusively with men.”

The information we have to date is inconsistent as to whether this pattern is more pronounced for men or women.

The studies aggregated below do not use control groups, and the question of how common different degrees of sexual orientation are in the general population is contentious. Richters et al (2008), using a population survey, found significant correlations between BDSM and bisexuality or homosexuality, with an especially strong correlation for lesbians. Unfortunately, they did not tabulate their results in a way that is amenable to this sort of chart.

Study		n	Heterosexual		Bisexual			Homosexual
Brame 2000	F	3004	68%		21%			4%
	M	3993						4%
Bienvenu and Jacques, 1999	F	564	23.9%	33.5%	15.6%	8.3%	3.9%	8.2%	6.6%
	M	486	45.5%	18.7%	3.3%	2.5%	1.2%	7%	21.8%
Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser 2006 ("24/7 slaves")		146	41%		26%			33%
Kolmes, Stock, and Moser 2006 (Kinky people who at some point had been in therapy)	F	175	35.4%		42.3%			18.9%
	M							5.1%
Moser and Levitt 1987	M	245	84.8%		2.2%			12.9%

Updated 11/19/2009

Psychological Correlates

2009-10-31T16:33:00.000-07:00

Sadomasochism was originally construed as a perversion and remains categorized as a paraphilia. With the important exception of Freud, early psychoanalysis theorized that sadomasochism was comorbid with a wide range of other pathologies and personality traits. Baumeister (1988a) captures some of the flavor of this writing:

“Stekel...linked masochism to cannibalism, criminality, vampirism, mass murder, necrophilia, epilepsy, pederasty, and the like. He actually said that all sadists (and therefore all masochists, who are sadists in his view) are murderers, and in a temporary lapse of therapeutic fervor he described their company as “the kingdom of hell.”...Reik said that all neurotics are masochists...”

On the strength of these assumptions, many early case studies of BDSM make little or no attempt to catalog comorbid disorders, even when it would have clearly been clinically useful to do so (Kilmann et al 1982). The assumption was simply that other disorders were surely present, or at least incipient. Freud had taken a contrary view, arguing at several points that a defining feature of paraphilias was how compartmentalized they were. For instance (pp. 15, 27):

“Many people are abnormal in their sexual life who in every other respect approximate to the average, and have, along with the rest, passed through the process of human cultural development.”

“But even in such cases [coprophilia and necrophilia] we should not be too ready to assume that people who act in this way will necessarily turn out to be insane or subject to grave abnormalities of other kinds. Here again we cannot escape from the fact that people whose behavior is in other respects normal can, under the domination of the most unruly of all instincts, put themselves in the category of sick persons in the single sphere of sexual life.”

These two contrary ideas form the poles of later research: Kink co-ccurs with a wide range of other mental conditions, or else it does not.

Evidence Against Co-Occurence

The first empirical study to address these questions is Spengler (1979). Meyer-Bahlburg (1980) writes:

“Spengler's data indicate that a subject's orientation does not permit stringent conclusions as to overall psychopathology; in fact, most of them seem to lead generally well-adjusted, inconspicuous lives. Moreover, in most cases, even sexual satisfaction is not limited to SM practices. This reminds one of the discrepancies between findings from clinical and non-clinical samples of homosexuals, and the resulting consequences for theoretical formulations.”

Later authors would reinforce this claim. Moser and Levitt (1987) could find no difference in a psychological function between their kinky sample and a control group. It also seems that relatively few kinky people voluntarily seek treatment for their kink: no study suggests a figure higher than 16%. Alison et al (2001) and Richters et al (2008) both found low levels of psychological distress, at least among kinky males. The latter study, famously, found that kinky men have a significantly lower level of psychological distress than the general population.

The most focused study on this topic to date has been Cross and Matheson (2006), which used a control group and compiled a large battery of psychiatric inventories designed to address major theories of kink etiology. These batteries included the stress, social potency, danger-seeking, and authoritarianism subscales of the DPQ; the neuroticism subscale of the EPI; the SCL-90-R; the Dissociative Experiences Scale; the RSES; the SBI; the RPI; the day-dream subscale of the IPI; the ICMI; the DCI; the LOC scale; an index of drug use; an index of sexual guilt; and various others. Cross and Matheson's results roundly rejected any correlation between kink and neuroticism, psychopathy, sexual guilt, low self-esteem, authoritarian personalities, escapism, day-dreaming, or drug use. (Notably, this study focused on masochists and sadists separately, eliminating a possible pitfall in this sort of research: masochists might have low scores, while sadists have high scores, and kinky people as a whole have average scores.)

More inferentially, our demographic information on kink (such as we have) typically fails to reject the null hypothesis. Kink does not seem to be closely related to urban or rural habitation, relationship status, level of education, or political viewpoint. The general trend is to suggest that is not all that closely related with gender, either. Richters and colleagues (2008) did not find any correlation between BDSM and having piercings or tattoos. These variables are not, per se, psychological, but if there was a strong association between kink and some particular psychopathology, it would be unusual to find no trace of it in variables such as these.

Finally, Klein and Moser (2006) point to the lack of concrete evidence against the claim for normalcy made by Freud and Spengler. They argue that, after fifty years of research, any meaningful co-occurences between BDSM and mental illnesses should be well-established in the empirical literature. While it is true that no such assocations are well-established, they are not non-existent. The following studies attempt to demonstrate such links.

Evidence for Co-Occurence with Other Aspects of Sexuality

There is a very robust argument that kinky people tend to have a more diverse sexual practice than non-kinky people. In the first place, kinky people are far more likely to be bisexual or homosexual. But more generally, people with a sexual focus on BDSM are apt to have a more exploratory sexual range than others. (Cross and Matheson 2006; Richters et al 2008).

Following Freud (p. 33) and many other authors, the DSM-IV asserts that paraphilics “not uncommonly” have more than one paraphilia (the others currently being exhibitionism, fetishism, frotterurism, pedophilia, transvestism, voyeurism, and "not otherwise specified"). More specifically, they claim an association between sadism, masochism, fetishism, and transvestism (p. 529), and the same set of associations is made in the ICD-10 (F65.5). Kinsey et al (1953, p. 681) suggests a narrower correspondence between male masochism and transvestism. While this conclusion seems to be based on substantial survey work, they do not provide statistical corroboration that it's significant. However, it seems to fit nicely into accounts of “forced feminization” as a male masochistic scripts. (Baumeister 1988b makes the observation that male masochistists with a forced-feminization kink are, in terms of text analysis, somewhat dissimilar from other masochists of either gender.)

The most robust findings from the Richters survey are that self-identified BDSM practioners are likely to have engaged in a wider range of sexual exploration than their non-kinky peers, even where ostensibly non-kinky sex acts are concerned. This includes vaginal, oral, anal or phone sex; fisting; rimming; digital anal stimulation; sexual non-exclusivity while in a relationship; higher numbers of lifetime sex partners; surfing internet sex sites; using toys; having group sex. Kinky men were also more likely to have had multiple sex partners, to have paid for sex at some point in their life, to masturbate, and to watch pornographic movies or videos. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin (1948) note that masochists have unusually diverse masturbation scripts (p. 510).

Evidence for Co-Occurence with Non-Sexual Conditions

Here we do not have any clear or consistent thesis. Clinical and criminal studies often suggest a relationship between kink and other psychopathologies, such as antisocial personality disorder, but these samples are almost certainly non-representative (Weinberg 2006). However, Richters et al (2008) found that for women, the experience of having been imprisoned at some point in the last 15 years was positively correlated with BDSM. We could imagine many patterns of causality to explain that finding, which clearly deserves more research.

Wise et al (1991) looking at a small group of paraphilic males within a larger clinical study, find high levels of neuroticism, low agreeability on the NEO-PI, elevated levels of fantasy, and low conscientiousness. Their sample, however, seems to include pedophiles, voyeurs, and exhibitionists as well as clinically presenting sadists and masochists.

The most focused research in this area have been etiological attempts to link kink to childhood sexual abuse@. If such a link could be established, it would be possible to infer that kink is related in some way to post-traumatic stress disorder or similar conditions: clearly a number of authors assume that this is the case. At the moment, though, this explanation does not seem to hold for most kinky people.

Connolly and her colleagues apparently conducted two purposive studies of mental health within BDSM communities, which ought to contribute significantly to this literature, but as far as I know they have not actually been published as of October, 2009.

Updated 11/19/2008

Nosology

2009-10-31T16:29:00.000-07:00

The concept of sadomasochism as a explicit behavioral pathology dates to Krafft-Ebing (1965 [1903]), who also invented the term “masochist.” Krafft-Ebing viewed sadism and masochism as typically “degenerate disorders,” (pp. 32,34) which in the eugenic nosology of his era meant that these were atavistic conditions caused by “hereditary taint” and associated with the catch-all social diagnosis of feeble-mindedness.

Freud (1969 [1905]) expanded on Krafft-Ebing's view, but specifically rejected the idea that the sexual perversions were degenerate disorders (pp. 4-5). He proposed a taxonomy of sexual perversions which remains remarkably close to the corresponding sections of the two major clinical guides today. The first of these is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (Known as the DSM-IV), produced by the American Psychological Association (APA 1994). The second is International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,” now in its tenth version (known as the ICD-10), produced by the World Health Organization (WHO 1992).

A somewhat different guideline is used in forensic psychiatry, and is discussed here@.

The DSM

Aside from minor changes in the wording to clarify that masochism and sadism were sexual disorders, I believe the diagnostic criteria for sadism and masochism remained unchanged from the DSM-I to the DSM-III. In effect, sadism and masochism in these editions were defined by a person having an history of preference for certain sexual activities; or by any single instance of extreme consensual BDSM. These diagnoses, based on objective history, or at least the patient's claims of such, had very high test-retest reliability (DSM-III, pp. 470-471) Notably, pretty much all self-described sadists and masochists would fall into this diagnostic category.

As of DSM-III in 1980, the nomenclature for these and related disorders changed from “sexual deviation” to “paraphilia,” which is “supposedly atheoretical [and] non-perjorative.” (Moser and Kleinplatz 2005). The significance of this change is rather undermined by the text, which explains that “paraphilia” means, roughly, “sexual deviation” in Latin. (DSM-III, pp. 266-267).

In the DSM-IV, the diagnostic criteria for both disorders was amended to require the much more subjective variable of “clinically significant distress or impairment.” This is a stock phrase used in many diagnoses, which is discussed separately (DSM-IV, p. 7). Test-retest reliability has not, to my knowledge, been re-established for these new diagnostic criteria.

It also isn't clear that the DSM articles apply this new criteria consistently. For instance, the discussion states: “many individuals with these disorders assert that the behavior causes them no distress and that their only problem is social dysfunction as a result of the reactions of others” (p. 524, my emphasis) The specific descriptions reinforce the idea that one may be in a consensual and fulfilling BDSM relationships, but still have a paraphilia, rather than the differential diagnosis, which is: “nonpathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors, or objects as a stimulus for sexual excitement.”

This leaves sadism and masochism in the odd (though not unique) position where their diagnosis as mental disorders hinges not on the patient's psychology nor even self-identification, but on the degree of social acceptance for their behaviors in the surrounding (sub)culture. This is exactly the paradox that the APA alleged they were addressing in removing homosexuality as a disorder (DSM-III, p. 380). It also creates a confusing terrain in which persons with an objective history of extreme consensual BDSM acts, who strongly identify as sadists or masochists, may or may not be defined as such by psychiatry. Thus Richters et al (2008) and similar studies have to qualify that what they mean by “sadists” or “masochists” is something else—something, in fact, closer to the DSM-III definition.

The current definition of masochism and sadism in the DSM-IV are as follows:

“Diagnostic Criteria for 302.83 Sexual Masochism

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” (p. 529)

“Diagnostic Criteria for 302.84 Sexual Sadism

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving acts (real, not simulated) in which the psychological or physical suffering (including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting to the person.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” (p. 530)

The ICD

The World Health Organization has a much more inclusive nosological taxonomy, the “International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,” now in its tenth version, known as the ICD-10. Within the ICD, section F65 is devoted to paraphilias, and F65.5 is “sadomasochism”--the condition is seen as unified.

F65.5

“A preference for sexual activity which involves the infliction of pain or humiliation, or bondage. If the subject prefers to be the recipient of such stimulation this is called masochism; if the provider, sadism. Often an individual obtains sexual excitement from both sadistic and masochistic activities.”

Notably, all that is required for diagnosis in this instance is a sexual preference. For the WHO, then, self-identified sadists and masochists are clearly diagnosable, as was the case under the DSM-III.

The first of the ICD versions to contain psychological disorders was the ICD-6, published in 1948. That lists “sexual deviations” as a block, coded 320.6, where block 320 is “pathological personalities.” Since then, it appears that sadomasochism has continued to exist in a more or less unchanged state, although the block header has changed more than once.

Challenges to these Nosologies

Psychological nosology is itself a controversial field, with philosophical challenges levied against the entire project of classifying people's mentalities and identifying some of these classifications as undesirable (Foucault 1998, or, in the popular press, Davis 1997, etc.) The APA's decision to dis-include homosexuality from a revision to the DSM-II was taken by many authors as a clear indication that the DSM nosology was not based solely on research, but was a normative discourse subject to political pressure (Martin 1985). The DSMs have come under more specific criticism for failing to cite research, for inadequately explaining changes in the nosology, for failure to define mental health, for lack of transparency, and for percieved conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These criticisms and the APA's rejoinders have received widespread coverage in the US media.

Specific criticisms of the nosology of sadism and masochism have existed at least since Kinsey (1948). According to Moser and Levitt (1987), very few kinky peple (5.1%) believe that SM is "best defined as a mental illness. Critiques of the standard nosology for BDSM have been echoed many times, usually following the same lines of argument. Nearly all of these authors focus on the point that consensual sadomasochism typically causes distress and social impairment only as a consequence of intolerance. It should thus be viewed–they argue—as a non-pathological minority sexual preference, equivalent to homosexuality or bisexuality. This is usually expressed in terms of a civil-rights or human-rights discourse. Moreover, they argue that the DSM and ICD descriptions of sadism and masochism are ambiguous, and inconsistent with those texts' own definitions of mental disorders. Finally, all these authors highlight the low evidence for comorbid disorders or for criminality@. (e.g. NCSF 2008)

Moser and Kleinplatz (2005) argue that the description of sadism and masochism provided in the DSM-IV is factually inaccurate at several points. Some of these arguments seem more compelling than others. For instance, the DSM-III does claim that the gender ratio of masochists is 20:1 in favor of men (p. 524), a claim that is unsupported and clearly incorrect. (Notably, the claim that sadists are “almost never” female is also incorrect: sadistic women probably represent about 9% of all kinky people.) Again, the DSM-III claims that paraphilias are comorbid with sexual dysfunction, and this is clearly not true, either@.

However, Moser and Kleinplatz attempt to exonerate kinky people from the suspicion that they have comorbidity with other neuroses@. This is probably a fair claim, but they achieve it by combining two sets of study results: Brown et al (1996) and Wise et al (1991). In light of what those studies actually say, this seems a long reach, and a little disingenuous. Again, the claim that kinky people are not interested in non-consent is referenced (among other places) by Weinberg et al (1984). This last paper is an ethnographic piece in which the target population (kinky people) was, in part, defined by their focus on consensual activities. To cite this as evidence seems tautological.

In spite of these weaknesses, the basic claim in Moser and Kleinplatz seems sound: “the editors of the DSM appear to reject the possibility that anyone would engage willingly in these activities, despite a now sizeable professional and lay press which indicates just that.”

Reiersøl and Skeid (2006), among others, argue that the ICD privileges heterosexual intercourse as the normative form of sex, and identifies behaviors as paraphilias whenever they “interfere” with this image. Finally, along with NCSF (2008), they note the inconsistent application of criminality and safety as diagnostic criteria:

“Most types of Paraphilia are not mentioned in the F65. Given that several kinds of sexual abuse are diagnosed as DSP, it seems strange that rape is not recognized as a diagnosis in the category. Similarly, the practice of unsafe sex does not appear as a sexual disorder diagnosis.”

Updated 6/14/2010

Theories of BDSM Sex Roles

2009-10-31T16:26:00.000-07:00

One of the most prominent and recognizable features of BDSM is the construction of a complementary duality between dominant and submissive; sadist and masochist; top and bottom. People who alternate between these roles are emically called “switches.” While these concepts seem to be fundamental within kinky discourse, they have been surprisingly hard for researchers to theorize adequately, and in consequence they have contributed to opacities in much of kink scholarship.

Some of the problems are mind-wrenching. Lee (1979) relies on an awkward taxonomy of “true sadists,” and “sadists,” and muddies this further by explaining that by “true sadist,” he means a quasi-fictitious stereotype. This does not seem like a useful convention. Still worse, some studies have, without explanation, classified sadism and masochism in non-symettric ways. For instance, sadists might be defined by asking if someone enjoys “whipping or beating [their] partner,” while masochists are those who enjoy “being sexually degraded.” It follows that those who enjoy being whipped or beaten, but don't find it degrading, are not masochists, although their partners are sadists. Meanwhile, those who enjoy degrading their lovers without impact play are not sadists, though their partners are masochists.

More generally, there are four categories of false assumption around kink roles, some of which have done serious damage to the utility of the research they have affected. These are:

All kinky people are switches

Freud (1962 [1905]) went through multiple theorizations of sadomasochism, but this claim is especially associated with him. He wrote “a sadist is always at the same time a masochist, although the active or the passive aspect of the perversion may be more strongly developed in him” (p. 25) Whatever the value of this claim for psychoanalysis, it has led to a reductive assumption in later research: that sadism and masochism are two permutations of the same psychic condition: hence “sadomasochism” is often referred to as an integrity, rather as one might think of manic-depression. (And is treated as such in the ICD.) When subsequent research confirmed that a number of kinky people do alternate between these roles, that seems to have been taken as confirmation of this theory (e.g. Weinberg et al. 1984).

Part of the appeal of this thesis, for the defenders of kink, is that it abrogates the sense of any permanent and unilateral imbalance of power between kinky people. To a very large extent, pro-BDSM discourse (and research) seems to have emphasized switching because it appeals to a non-kinky concern about fairness and equity. (Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser (2006) make a similar point about the focus on time-limited sex scenes, rather than ongoing relationships.) Notably, the fact that many of the participants switched roles was a key argument for the defense in the Spanner trial; switching, it was suggested, demonstrated proof that the activities were consensual (White 2006).

All kinky people are fundamentally tops

For Freud, sadism had obvious routes in “normal” male sexual aggressiveness, but masochism was more of a mystery. (1962 [1905] p. 23-24) He concluded that masochism was a transformation of sadism: sadists who became sexually frustrated might convert to masochism. Later he partially abandoned this theory, but it had considerable traction in later literature: all kinky people are essentially sadists.

Criminological studies of kink tend to focus on sadism as the more obviously criminogenic role. In much of this literature, it is taken for granted that sadistic behavior is necessarily non-consensual; the notion of consensual masochism is not countenanced as part of “sadomasochism,” though the portmanteau term is often used. See, for example, Stekel (1953 [1929]).

This tendency is still quite apparent in papers that focus on drug treatment of kink, almost none of which mention masochism as a possible version of sadomasochism.

All kinky people are fundamentally bottoms

Lee (1979) quotes John Rechy, a gay activist who considered SM to be internalized homophobia and “sexual fascism.” In his analysis:

“there is no S in these gay relationships...the whimpering masochists and the tough posturing sadists are in reality all masochists grovelling in self-hatred.”

While negatively phrased, Rechy's contention joins in an older notion that whatever psychic benefits BDSM may offer, they all pertain to the bottom, not the top. (c.f. Gebhardt 1969) This argument, it has to be said, is buttressed by a wealth of reassurances from BDSM practioners and their defenders, who insist that bottoms find their role subjectively rewarding and tops do not always “get their way” (Nichols 2006, etc.).

Baumeister (1988a) theorized this as the masochist's ability to escape from the “burden of self,” a benefit which is facilitated, but not shared, by their sadistic partner. Later, Baumeister would expand this explanation to suggest an evolutionary model for kink: all kinky people aim to be masochists, but not everyone can simultaneously be a masochist, so an experiential hierarchy evolves, in which less experienced kinky persons are forced to be tops, until they have “paid their dues” and can experience the subjective psychic benefits of masochism. (Cross and Matheson 2006)

This concept follows closely on an observation that Lee (1979) makes: “Gay S/M folklore holds that 'a good top man (master) begins as a good bottom man (slave)'” Lee also found that almost all of his sample group, including current sadists, had been “mentored” by a more experienced top.

All kinky men are tops, all kinky women are bottoms

Within research focusing on heterosexuals, there has also been a general notion that males are dominant and females are submissive. (e.g. Kraft-Ebbing 1965 [1903] pp. 53-54). Obviously this pattern mirrors longstanding patriarchal dynamics, and it is usually either championed or attacked on that basis. Discursive depictions of kink as essentially based on male domination and female submission include a great deal of pornography, including subculturally famous works such as The Story of O, or John Norman's science fiction series; but it also includes proponents of “non-kinky” D/s relationships like the Surrendered Wives movement (Doyle 2001) or “neo-Patriarchal” Christian groups. Critics see this as internalized and structural sexism.@

Evidence against these theories

The empirical evidence on the ratio of kinky people in various roles is lengthy enough that I have given it a separate page, but it strongly bears out three points. Firstly, only a minority of kinky people routinely switch roles, and a large group—slightly less than half—never switch roles. Secondly, all permutations of gender, classical sexual orientation, and kink role exist. The universe of sexuality is apparently much larger than the imaginations of the theories above.

Thirdly, however, the evidence from the role-ratio studies suggests that there is, indeed, a fairly strong correlation between gender and role: men are substantially more likely than women to be tops, and vice versa. This pattern does extend to lesbians, who are more apt to be bottoms, and possibly also to gay men (Nordling et al 2006).

This correlation introduces a serious problem for analysis of other kink studies, which I term role/gender confusion. Many studies on kink do not ask respondents to identify what role(s) they take on sexually. Moreover, almost no studies regress their data against those roles. This has significant repercussions for our understanding, since any variables that are fundamentally associated with role are likely to covary with gender. For instance, Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) find that kinky women are far more likely than kinky men to come from a broken home. Is this a gender correlation, or is it better explained as a role correlation? So far, we don't know.

Baumeister's hypothesis is specifically addressed by Cross and Matheson (2006), who spent a whole subsection of their psychological study of kinky people testing it. They reject the concept, concluding:

“These findings suggest strongly that contrary to the prediction of Baumeister’s theory, submissive acts and desires are preferred by masochists and switches relative to sadists, who do not in fact differ on this index [of submissive desires] from non-sadomasochists.”

Sex Role Ratio

2009-10-31T16:23:00.000-07:00

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

The Janus Report

2009-10-31T16:17:00.000-07:00

The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (1993) is probably the closest US equivalent to Richters et al (2008), though it is written much more informally and does not focus on BDSM. Like the Richters study, it is a nationwide survey (using, in this case, a stratified random sample), with a fairly large sample size (~1700). While it is not focused on kink, the Janus Report does include several questions about kink, and provides us with valuable information because it is not a purposive sample of a BDSM community.

Unfortunately, the wording of the the questions that Janus Report asks makes it difficult to interpret the results. They asked subjects to rate a number of sexual practices on a scale as follows:

“Very Normal”

“All right”

“Unusual”

“Kinky”

“Never heard of it”

As Reiersøl and Skeid (2006) point out, “unusual” can mean either statistically infrequent—their example is stamp collecting—or normatively immoral. The inclusion of “all right” would seem to make this question a normative one, but that's a rather subtle distinction to expect survey subjects to grasp consistently. The word “kinky” may be used as pejorative, especially in 1993 (e.g. Plante 2006), but very many people also use “kinky” as a neutral descriptor for certain activities. It is entirely unclear that people who practice BDSM on a regular basis would describe their activitie as “very normal,” or that people who perceive BDSM to be “very normal” would also practice it.

Given these ambiguities, perhaps the most interesting feature of the Janus Report is the way different versions of these questions line up. Few people (1.5%) consider S&M, domination or bondage to be “very normal.” Twice as many (3%) strongly agree with the claim that “pain and pleasure really go together in sex.” And 12.5% of people report having some experience with BDSM. Despite the problematic way the question is phrased, these ratios are not at all inconsistent with the numbers in other prevalence studies.

Political Profile

2009-10-31T16:16:00.000-07:00

Janus and Janus (1993 p. 291) find that a (problematic) proxy variable for acceptance of sadomasochism is twice as common among far-right subjects as far-left subjects, who are in turn three times more likely to condone S&M as political moderates. They note that this is “a revealing departure from their self-projected image of sexual moderation and restraint.” At the same time, however, far-right subjects are over two and a half times more likely to say that they “never heard of” sadomasochism as people on the far left.

Unfortunately, Janus and Janus discarded the data on more moderate rightists and leftists, which might have been explanatory. In the American right, for instance, a focus on sexuality as a civil-liberties issue is primarily a concern of libertarian “ultras,” while it would be surprising to see it among mainstream conservatives.

Brame (2000), using a purposive sample, finds almost exactly the opposite: far more moderates than leftists, who in turn outnumber conservatives three to one. Brame also finds a relatively large (8%) proportion of kinky libertarians.

One can only conclude that more research is needed in this area.

Moving beyond the left-right continuum, Cross and Matheson (2006) used two different indices of pro-feminist outlook (Matheson 1996, and Spanos and Dubreuil, 1991) They found that kinky people had (slightly) more pro-feminist attitudes than their control group; in both cases, women were more pro-feminist than men. Among the kinky people they surveyed, masochists and switches were slightly more pro-feminist than sadists.

Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) provide a "Fascism scale" for their population, but it seems to be based on only one item from the F-Scale (see Ray 1972) viz: "There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents." 9% of kinky men and 3.9% of kinky women strongly endorsed this statement, but in the absence of the other 27 questions from the F-Scale, it's hard to give much weight to those results.

Recovery from Kink

2009-10-31T16:15:00.000-07:00

Advocates of treatment for kink imply that it is possible to “recover” from kinky sexual desires, and this is clearly a goal of many people. Moser and Levitt (1987) found that 5.8% of their sample wished they were not kinky, and Brame (2000) found that 36% of her sample had at some point tried to abandon their kink. We can infer from the context of these studies that such efforts were unsuccessful, but at the same time, purposive surveys cannot indicate how many other kinky people were successful in abandoning those desires.

Gebhardt et al (1965) do look at this question, albeit indirectly. They find that in their general (male) population sample, 6.6% of the group report some degree of arousal from sadomasochistic stories and images. Another 1.2% report that they previously experienced such arousal, but don't anymore. (p. 683) Similar declines with time appear in a variety of prevalance measures. Hamilton (1929) notes an especially strong decline for female sadism, and almost no decline for female masochism, with males falling in the middle.

These declines typically seem to account for 15%-30% of the total population that was ever kinky (by whatever metric). While the data really isn't conclusive, we might imagine that about two-thirds of all people with kinky desires try to reject them, and about half of that group are successful in doing so.

At least three authors have published autobiographical accounts of recovering from kink: Jonel (1982) and Harris (1982), and a sex worker interviewed in Chapkis (1997, p. 93). Jonel implies, and Harris states that they continued to experience masochistic desires, but no longer allow themselves to act on them. Jonel describes being abused in a BDSM context, and cites a major factor in her recovery from masochism being the support of a family and community that equated BDSM with abuse. The woman interviewed in Chapkis continued to identify as a masochist, but found she could no longer enjoy masochistic sex, for physical and emotional reasons. She regretted this as a loss.

Updated 1/3/2010

Treatment of Kink

2009-10-31T16:06:00.000-07:00

Until the 1980s, almost all research on BDSM took the normative position that sadism and masochism were undesirable paraphilias or perversions (criminal, pathological, and/or immoral) that ought to rectified, if possible, by outside intervention. At least some authors continue to hold this view.

The result has been a sub-genre of literature on the clinical treatment of persons with kinky sexual behavior. This literature closely parallels research into treatments for homosexuality. In fact, the two genres overlap considerably: Dengrove (1967) discusses behavioral treatments for sexual disorders, including impotence, frigidity, and homosexuality. He then parenthetically extends his suggestions to include sadism and masochism, as well.

Since that era, secular psychology has changed to reflect, in large part, the inability of these efforts to cure homosexuality. It seems likely that we are in the midst of a similar nosological shift around BDSM. (Discussion here.) It is also worth noting that Franks (1967) draws a comparison between the use of aversion therapy to treat sexual deviance, and the use of aversion therapy (emetics) to treat alcoholism: another project that was notoriously a failure.

Still, there are a number of authors who maintain that sadism and masochism are pathologies that respond to treatment, and that should be treated. These authors generally do not distinguish between BDSM and rape, or other sex crimes, including homicide. They rarely engage any of the sociological literature on kink, and they are, in contrast, rarely cited by sociologists: the two discussions seem to occur in separate spheres.

With one exception, the papers cited below only discuss men, probably in keeping with the contemporary idea that kinky women did not exist, or else were not dangerous to themselves or others. It is worth noting, however, that many feminist authors have interpreted female masochism or submission as a version of “brainwashing.” The notion of brainwashing is derived from US propaganda during the Korean War, vis-a-vis POWs. POWs identified as having been brainwashed were successfully treated (or at least resumed their former opinions during treatment). Subsequently the concept of “deprogramming," or later "exit counselling" of brainwashed persons was applied to “cult” religions and the like. While all of this literature is highly controversial, the point of immediate interest is that there does not seem to be a complementary literature on BDSM. If female submission is a version of brainwashing, I cannot find any studies about the efficacy of treating it as such.

So....there are several wings of this discussion, following longstanding divisions in psychotherapy. Psycoanalytic approaches are discussed by Schad-Somers (1982); this book is the only one I've seen that discusses treatment of kink in women. Behavioral or aversion therapy, often in concert with psychotherapy, is suggested by Franks (1967), Dengrove (1967), Woody (1973), and Abel, Rouleau, and Cunningham-Rathner (1986), among others. There are obvious difficulties in using aversion therapy on kinky persons who are, presumably, also starved for sexual attention. Amazingly, these are not addressed in this literature. Woody, for instance, speaks of having twice-daily sessions where a patient would dress in fetish gear and masturbate in front of the researchers while being given electrical shocks. If Woody has any doubts about whether this was actually aversive for the patient, he does not mention them. A skeptical reader might imagine it was the highlight of the patient's sexual career.

Pharmacalogical treatment is based on the use of androgen-depleting hormones, either medroxyprogesterone acetate or cyproterone acetate. The effect is to “chemically castrate” the subject, ideally rendering them incapable of an erection or orgasm, and possibly decreasing their libido, although several authors point out that these drugs do not seem to affect kinky ideation as such. SSRIs are sometimes suggested as a complementary drug. With little variation, this course of treatment has been proposed by Money (1970, 1987); Berlin, Money, and Lehne (1983); and Bradford (2000). Bradford makes it clear in his article that he is not simply discussing people who coercively act out sadistic fantasies; or even act them out at all. Indeed, he makes a distinction between “coercive paraphilias” and “sexual sadism,” but he sees both as appropriate candidates for medication. If this treatment does not effect sadistic ideation, but does inhibit “normal” sexual functioning, it would seem to pose a risk of driving sadists towards more injurious activities. Again, this possibility is not discussed in the literature.

While there is some evidence that a minority of kinky people "recover," most of the outcome research on treatment of paraphilias is very weak. As Kilmann et al. (1982) point out, it typically depends on case studies rather than surveys; lacks control groups; does not measure co-morbidity with other pathologies; and relies on the subjective impression of the patients to establish “progress,” although there are strong legal and social incentives for patients to misrepresent that progress. And Kilmann and his colleagues raise these critiques while defending this research; much stronger criticisms might be raised by those seeking to disparage it. Finally, papers with very low sample sizes and/or very low success rates are frequently cited after the fact as evidence of how effective these treatments are. This research, like comparable research on the treatment of homosexuality, seems to have been a dead-end.

Updated 1/9/2010

Racism

2009-10-31T16:03:00.000-07:00

Radical feminists have prominently decried both racist imagery and ideation in BDSM, especially Nazi imagery and tropes of black enslavement. Sadomasochist scripts have also encompassed racial-exoticism tropes such as Orientalism (Arab Sheik or Turkish Sultan and white(?) slave or concubine), or white cowboy and American Indian (Lee 1979). Some authors focus on the uncontrollable nature of these symbols: whatever the intentions of someone wearing an SS uniform in the Castro, it can be taken as an anti-Semitic threat, either by Jews and their allies, or, conversely, by neo-Nazis (Star 1982; Walker 1982; Farley 1993). Public symbols of BDSM, then, are racist statements. Other authors argue that BDSM is racist even in private expression. Dworkin (1987), for instance, writes of Nazi-roleplaying: “the point of the sex they are having is to inflict pain on a Jew.” Sims, Mason, and Pagano (1982) see BDSM as an avenue in which white lesbian tops can recapitulate racist oppression of black bottoms.

While these issues have been widely discussed, I am not aware of any studies comparing kinky people to a control group on racial tolerance indices. Again, I am not aware of studies about the racial profile of top/bottom roles in mixed-race BDSM sex. These points are not, of course, relevant to the questions raised by racialized symbols in kink, but the point remains: we know almost nothing about the racialization of BDSM.

Introduction

2009-10-31T15:57:00.000-07:00

This is my personal attempt to summarize and interpret the extant research on kink. While the internet has provided access to information about kink at an unheard-of-rate, misinformation of all sorts has proliferated as well...and much faster. Moreover, a lot of the extant research on kink, especially in public media, does not seem to be informed by previous research. We keep discovering the same things and making the same errors, and it is hard to find overviews of what we know and don't know. Hence this blog.

I am writing primarily for my own clarity, but I hope that as this site grows it will be useful for other kinky folks, our allies, our critics, and professionals who need a well-referenced overview of what is known about this relatively esoteric topic. This is not primarily a set of links (c.f. Ranai 2009). Rather, this is a series of overviews of scholarly articles, arranged by topic and filtered through the lens of one reader's perceptions.

Definition

By “kink,” on this site, I mean a nebula of desires, fantasies, and practices in which pain, dominance, submission, and/or bondage are interwoven into people's sexuality or relationship patterns. This may incorporate any of a wide range of tropes (e.g leather gear) and scripts (e.g. role-playing). No single element of these is definitively kinky (Moser and Levitt 1987), and not all people who are etically identifiable as kinky, sadistic, submissive, or other such labels will utilize those labels themselves (Plante 2006).

I don't make any a priori assumption that kinky behavior is consensual. However, at a definitional level, I want to distinguish between kinky activities and superficially similar violence, in two ways. First, kink is intrinsically erotic. At least one person involved associates the activities with sexual arousal directly, rather than instrumentally. Violence, authority, and bondage per se are not kinky for purposes of this discussion. Second, self-identified kinky people view their sexuality as deviant, in some degree. The especially important point here is that in patriarchal societies—or indeed in slave societies—there may be a widespread norm of sexual submission, sadoeroticism, and/or bondage, at least for certain tropes. But these tropes are locally normalized. When we speak of “kinky people,” we are referring to people who view their own sexual behavior (whatever they call it) as being at least somewhat infrequent in their cultural context.

In other words, a man beating his wife in the street in England in 1590 is not (necessarily) kinky as per this discussion. Again, a man who sexually dominates his wife in Iowa in 1950 is not (necessarily) kinky, either. A woman who (in 1590 or 1950) makes her two girlfriends compete to see which of them is allowed an orgasm, that's kinky. Even if she doesn't think so. Yes? OK, we're all on the same page.

Me

I'm male. Always been male, got the whole male body thing going on. I'm in my 30s. I'm pretty straight, I'm maybe a 2.5 or so on the Kinsey scale. I'm not a lawyer or a therapist, nor am I one of the authors discussed here writing under a pseudonym.

I'm submissive, and in a so-called "24/7" relationship with my lover, though generally we would not use that terminology. We've been together for a little over ten years. She is a research scientist in the usual sense; I'm not. I have, however, occasionally been employed as a researcher and data analyst; I know from statistics and research methods; I'm not a total hack. We're kinky people, but we are completely outside the networks of any kink "scene," except insofar as I have a blog. (Specifically: I've never been to a BDSM club or event; I have no affiliation with any BDSM organization; I know less than five people, in person, who self-identify as kinky.) I hope that, for this project, my lack of personal familiarity with a "scene" is compensated for by the absence of participant bias.

Notes on this Blog

Although this site is structured, opportunistically, as a blog, it is not arranged in chronological order as blogs usually are. The articles will be updated regularly as I read further, and each article will be annotated accordingly. While my interest in this project is personal, it is worth noting that I have rarely seen kink websites in which any one person had synthesized a range of arguments about this topic. More typically, I find that in forums, one person who has read one or two papers is arguing with somone who has read one or two other papers. It is my own intention to read every scholarly piece in this field, and condense the results here. I welcome suggestions for further reading.

The bibliography for all the articles is here. In a few cases, I've only been able to read the abstract or a summary of an article; those cases are always marked accordingly in the bibliography.

With the exception of the bibliography, all the hyperlinks on this site are internal. Links to pages I haven't finished yet are marked "@." Sorry about that.

Urban / Rural Profile

2009-10-21T13:47:00.000-07:00

Lourde and Star (1982) find it self-evident that BDSM is an urban phenomenon; they consider the idea of rural BDSM to be ludicrous. Most purposive samples of kinky people have focused on urban areas.

However, there is no evidence to support this distribution. Brame (2000) places 33% of her sample in major cities, 74% in all cities, and 24% in small towns or rural areas. (By contrast, the US 2000 census places 79% of the population in urban areas, and 21% in rural areas.) Again, Richters et al (2008) could find no correlation between BDSM practice and region, with one exception: kinky women were slightly less likely to live in "remote regions" (of Australia).

A possible explanation for this might be seen in Bienvenu and Jacques (1999), who note that 14% of women in their sample (and 11% of men) have at some point moved "specifically for a reason related to their interest in BDSM." Presumably most of this motion was into cities.

Pain

2009-10-14T13:34:00.000-07:00

While pain is clearly of paramount importance to discussions of BDSM, it is a more problematic element that it might seem. Kinky people discussing their activities frequently employ oxymorons like “painful pleasure.” Masochists may identify some activities that otherwise seem excruciating to be not painful at all, or to be painful but overlaid with erotic sensations. This make a simple question like “does it hurt?” problematic in the context of kink research. Pointedly, even in non-sadomasochist sex, it is difficult for most people to discover what level of discomfort or pain is “normal” during various sex acts such as intercourse. Phrases such as “rough sex,” may encode a considerable amount of painful sensation, while neither partner considers themselves to be engaged in pain-play. These problems have been repeatedly noted by researchers.(Kinsey and Martin 1953, p. 677; Weinberg et al 1984) Plante (2006) notes that the spanking enthusiasts she studied explicitly reject explanations of their behavior that focus on pain, speaking instead of an emotional connection to spanking.

It is also quite clear that a number of people who enjoy giving or receiving pain as an element in their sexuality do not identify this as kinky, and do not necessarily relate to other kink tropes. Janus and Janus (1993 pp. 114-117) find that 4% of men and 2% of women strongly agree that pleasure and pain “really go together in sex.” However, their equivalent strong-acceptance question for BDSM is only half that size. In contrast, roughly 70% of the population disagrees with this pain-pleasure association, and Kinsey and Martin find that 45% of women and 50% of men never eroticize being bitten, which is often viewed as the most “modest” form of pain-play (Kinsey and Martin 1953 pp. 677-678). Around half the population, apparently, doesn't like pain at all.

Pain as an element of BDSM play may be highly stylized. The anticipation and discussion of the painful event (often termed “punishment,” “discipline,” or “torture”) can take on a large erotic role (Lee 1978), and the pain itself may be stage-managed to seem more intense than it is (Weinberg et al 1984). It has also been proposed that masochistic scripts around pain differ by gender, at least for heterosexuals. Male masochists might prefer more intense pain, and eroticize pain as a decontextualized sensual experience, while female masochists tend to “endow pain with meaning” in the context of a real or role-played relationship (Baumeister 1988b).

Religious Profile

2009-10-13T17:42:00.000-07:00

Bienvenu and Jacques (1999) find that 47% of kinky people in their survey self-describe as being agnostic, atheist, or having no religion, while 12% describe themselves as pagan or Wiccan. Both of these unusually high rates are echoed in Brame (2000), who finds 29% agnostic or atheist and 23% “no religion,” while pagans account for 9% and “other” for 10%. In both of these studies, Catholics also appear to be slightly over-represented in comparison to other Christians.

Janus and Janus (1993 p. 245) break down responses to the statement “pain and pleasure really go together in sex” by religiosity. While the majority of people (who disagree with this statement,) form a consistent block regardless of religiosity, strong endorsements of this statement are clearly related to religiosity. The highly religious are six times more likely to strongly endorse it than the non-religious. We can infer from Brame that about 11% of religious kinky people consider themselves “devout” in their faith.

Finally, Brame finds that most kinky people (76%) do not see a conflict between their faith and their kink.

Prevalence

2009-08-10T06:26:00.000-07:00

In the absence of a true census, estimating the prevalence of any recondite minority group is difficult. The group member's self-perception of prevalence may be clouded either by a desire to assert that they are exceptional (and thus rare), or a desire to assert that they are normal (and thus common). Similar motives may be true for outsiders. In the case of BDSM, the conflicting possibilities for defining the group add another layer of doubt. There is, for instance, a subculture of spanking enthusiasts who disdain the term BDSM, which they view as “really kinky stuff” (Plante 2006). As Moser and Levitt (1987) point out, there is no single activity that definitively distinguishes kinky people from non-kinky people.

Some authors, including the APA (1994), note that the volume of BDSM pornography suggests a relatively large population. But interpretations of BDSM imagery in the media are not conclusive. The appearance of BDSM tropes in, for instance, television shows might suggest that it is a widespread practice, or else simply an exotic and alluring practice. (See Weiss 2006) We could not, for instance, use popular media to estimate the number of cowboys or homicide detectives. Conversely, the stigmatization@ of BDSM might suggest that it is rare, but cultures have been known to stigmatize practices that were enormously common (e.g masturbation or alcohol consumption.)

The following surveys make some type of estimation of the overall prevalence of kink. This necessarily means that they are looking at a broader population than just kinky people. All the following surveys were aimed at a sexually non-specific populations, with the exception of Stein (1974), who was looking at men paying for sex. We can outline several trends.

First, about half the population, regardless of gender, seems to incorporate some kind of mild pain play (e.g. biting) into their sex lives, although they probably do not consider this to be kinky, and may not even identify it as pain-play.

Second, roughly 15%-35% of the population (or one in three to seven people) has some recurring fantasy or erotic impulse about BDSM, and in general the men are more likely to identify as dominant or sadistic in this fantasy world, and the women as submissive or masochistic. (It might be noteworthy that in Hamilton's study, the men report ever-having-had masochistic fantasies at about the same rate as the women, but to a large degree they report no longer having them.)

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%-15% of the population has at some point acted on these desires in a way that is more extreme than biting or, probably, spanking. They see themselves as having tried practices that they think of as kinky.

Finally, between 1.5% and 3% of the population (or one in about thirty to sixty people) acts on these fantasies with some degree of frequency. This is the group that most likely self-identifies as being kinky or “into BDSM,” and this is the group that subsequent studies focusing on kinky people are probably drawing on.

This last group is somewhat disproportionately male, and on the basis of these census figures, the ratio is about ten men to seven women. This last ratio has been contentious, and see a further discussion here.

Study	n	Criteria	Men		Women
			Sadistic	Masochistic	Sadistic	Masochistic
Hamilton (1929)	200	Have ever had impulses	51%	28%	32%	29%
		Still have impulses	33%	20%	19%	27%
Kinsey et al (1953)	2767	Find biting erotic	52%		54%
	3896	Frequently aroused by SM scenarios	10%		3%
		Occasionally aroused by SM scenarios	22%		12%
Hariton (1972)	141	Fantasies				19%-49%
		Frequent fantasies				2%-14%
Stein(1974)	Role assumed while paying for sex	1242		13%
Hunt (1974)	2026	Have experienced pleasure	4.8%	2.5%	2.1%	4.6%
		...in the last year (Approx)	3.1%	1.6%	1.4%	3%
Playboy (1976)	3700	Fantasies	5%		8%
		Tried S/M and liked it (Approx)	2%		2%
Sue(1979)	Fantasies during sex	230	23.5%	21%	15%	36.4%
Richters et al. (2008)	Self-identified BDSM practitioners	19307	2.2%		1.3%
Janus and Janus (1994)	Have ever engaged in some form of BDSM	1742	14%		11%
	Consider BDSM 'very normal'		2%		1%