Sociology Research paper

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csmt20

Sexual and Relationship Therapy

ISSN: 1468-1994 (Print) 1468-1749 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csmt20

Practice of consensual BDSM and relationship satisfaction

Hannah M.E. Rogak & Jennifer Jo Connor

To cite this article: Hannah M.E. Rogak & Jennifer Jo Connor (2017): Practice of consensual BDSM and relationship satisfaction, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, DOI: 10.1080/14681994.2017.1419560

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1419560

Published online: 29 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 63

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Practice of consensual BDSM and relationship satisfaction

Hannah M.E. Rogaka and Jennifer Jo Connorb

aTrue Balance Counseling, Little Falls, MN, USA; bDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 30 December 2016 Accepted 14 October 2017

ABSTRACT Sexual behaviors and styles that differ from that of the majority culture have been pathologized throughout history. One such category of sexual variation is BDSM (bondage-discipline/ dominance-submission/sadism–masochism). Research onpsychotherapists suggests beliefs that BDSM practitioners cannot sustain healthy relationships. A growing body of literature, however, describes those who engage in BDSM activities as socially well- adjusted individuals who are no more likely to have psychological distress than the general population. This study used an online survey distributed via BDSM community websites and word-of- mouth to measure relationship satisfaction among BDSM practitioners who were in committed relationships. The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) was administered, as well as a number of demographic and BDSM participation questions about both the participants and their partners. Findings indicated participants did not score above the clinically distressed criterion cut-off on the RDAS. Additionally, data analysis compared gender and BDSM roles on RDAS scores. This yielded no statistically significant results. These results were considered in the context of the feminist critique of BDSM and family systems theory. The current study adds to previous research by examining relationship satisfaction, providing more evidence that those practicing BDSM are not significantly more pathological than the population in general.

KEYWORDS BDSM; kink; relationship satisfaction; couple satisfaction

Introduction

Sadomasochism (SM) has at various times throughout history been treated as criminal behavior, mental illness, sexual taboo, and a sign of sexual freedom. The language used to describe the subculture has varied from the original term, SM, to BDSM (bondage-disci- pline/dominance-submission/sadism–masochism) which incorporates a broader range of interests and activities. For example, some subgroups partake in only bondage and restraints, others only hierarchical power dynamics and others still only role play, all in addition to those who enjoy the consensual giving and receiving of pain. For the purposes of this paper, we will use the term BDSM – as the majority of participants in the present study self-identified as engaging in BDSM behavior.

CONTACT Hannah M.E. Rogak [email protected], [email protected]

© 2017 College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1419560

The exact number of people who engage in BDSM behavior is hard to determine due to the challenges in defining what constitutes BDSM. Population statistics range from 1.8% in Australia (Richters, De Visser, Rissel, Grulich, & Smith, 2008) to up to 10% in the U.S. (Moser & Kleinplatz, 2006; Reinisch & Beasley, 1990). Despite this prevalence, the BDSM community continues to be under-researched and poorly understood. In addition, inti- mate relationships within the BDSM community have received little empirical study. In the current study, we examine reported relationship satisfaction in individuals participat- ing in BDSM.

Sadomasochism: normal or not?

Michel Foucault (1978) hypothesized that the repression of sexuality in the Western world resulted, ironically, from an exponential increase in the discourse around it. The public conversation of sex began to broaden, Foucault posits, from Catholicism requiring excru- ciatingly detailed sexual confessions in the seventeenth century, which theretofore had been reserved for only the “ascetic and monastic setting” (p. 20). The nodes of public dis- course expanded further as sexuality became the focus of bureaucracies concerned with population analysis and control in the nineteenth century (Foucault, 1978). Soon the topic of sexuality was dissected by doctors, politicians, social committees, and educators, inher- ent in the planning of buildings (separating uncontrollable sexual boys and girls) and explicit manuals delineating appropriate from inappropriate sexualities. In 1886, psychia- trist Richard von Krafft-Ebing coined the terms “sadism” and “masochism” as the giving and receiving of sexualized pain, respectively (Kennedy, 2002), based on classic literature (Justine by Marquis de Sade, 1791; Venus in Furs by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, 1870). As Krafft-Ebing and other medical professionals aimed their focus on sexuality, deviations in sexual behavior moved from being sinful acts, committed by an otherwise “normal” person at a fixed point in time, to disorders inherent in the individual. Thus, perhaps a well-meaning attempt to understand unusual sexual behaviors became a more disparaging and enduring pathology (Oosterhuis, 2012). Sigmund Freud is one of the most widely rec- ognized progenitors of such secular sex standards, and his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality provided explicit delineations between normal and not. Freud (1962) described sexuality as humanity’s weak spot, the area in which an otherwise normal person could behave abnormally. Freud defines as abnormal or aberrations: homosexuality (“inver- sion”), fetishism, voyeurism, sexual touching without intercourse, sadism, and masochism.

It is perhaps not surprising, then, to find continued discrimination against BDSM- identified individuals by professionals in the medical, mental health, legal, and law enforcement systems (Klein & Moser, 2006; Kolmes, Stock, & Moser, 2006; Lawrence & Love-Crowell, 2008; Ridinger, 2006; Wright, 2006, 2010). A preponderance of research, however, has so far shown no correlations between sadomasochism and mental illness, neuroticism, a history of abuse, or an inclination to criminal behavior (Connolly, 2006; Cross & Matheson, 2006; Dancer, Kleinplatz, & Moser, 2006; Lawrence & Love-Crowell, 2008; Moser & Kleinplatz, 2006; Newmahr, 2010a; Powls & Davies, 2012; Richters et al., 2008; Weinberg, 2006; Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013). The practice of sexual sadism and sexual masochism is currently designated as a mental health diagnosis in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (American

2 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) if the individual has acted on a non-consenting per- son, or the urges must have caused significant distress or interpersonal difficulty (APA, 2013). In practice, this should mean the diagnoses of sexual sadism or sexual masochism are reserved for either criminal populations or individuals who seek therapy for discom- fort with their sexual interests. However, the mere inclusion of sexual sadism as a mental health diagnosis has led to discrimination of consensual BDSM activity by mental health professionals, social service workers, and the judicial system (Klein & Moser, 2006; Kolmes et al., 2006; Lawrence & Love-Crowell, 2008). Therapists may tend to pathologize not only the individuals but the relationships themselves; Kelsey, Stiles, Spiller, and Die- khoff (2013) found that 33% of surveyed therapists were unsure if individuals engaging in BDSM could be in healthy relationships. Thus, despite the evolving perspective of medical and mental health communities away from BDSM as psychopathology, there is evidence of need for greater clinical familiarity and competence with this population.

Feminism debate on BDSM

In addition to the narrative that BDSM comes from psychological dysfunction is the the- ory that it is part of a more systemic, sociological pathology. Over the past three decades a discourse on BDSM has developed in feminist literature, particularly in regards to ele- ments of power, subjugation, and Western patriarchal norms of sexuality (Chancer, 2000). On one side of this debate, feminists have argued that SM and BDSM activities are extensions of hegemonic sexuality – vehicles of oppression and torture (Hawthorne, 2005; Linden, Pagano, Russell, & Star, 1982). A common theme among this viewpoint is that one cannot be both a feminist and a sadomasochist (Coalition for a Feminist Sexuality and Against Sadomasochism, 1983; Linden et al., 1982). Hawthorne (2005) argues that BDSM sanctions violence against women, especially lesbians, and will lead to increased violence. In essence, any activity that involves power differentials or violence is perceived as inherently antithetical to a feminist culture.

On the other side of the discourse are those who view BDSM as either an empowering, anti-establishment form of sexual expression or a consensual simulation of the male-dom- inant power inequalities opposed by feminism. Hopkins (1997) asserts that although BDSM violence and roles appear to mirror patriarchy, all the coercion, terror, and real harm is negated by negotiations and the power of participants to halt the scene. BDSM practitioners are engaged in a simulation, much like trained sword-fight actors who thrill at the act of fighting, totally separate from the act of harming. Hopkins uses the example of a rider on a rollercoaster and asks, “but is the best interpretation of the roller coaster rider’s desire that she really would like to plummet to her death or collide with another train?” (pp. 125–126). Thus, mere aesthetic similarities with acts of oppression are not suf- ficient to say BDSM serves as replications of them.

BDSM as simulation, not replication or catharsis, became one of the first perspectives to explain both the violent, hierarchical appearance of and deep enjoyment in BDSM activities. About a decade later, though, Nils-Hennes Stear took the concept of BDSM simulation further, integrating into it Kendall Walton’s theory of art known as “make- believe” (Stear, 2009). In this framework, art is a game synonymous with child’s imagina- tive play, where one uses props and experiences quasi-emotions (the belief in and physio- logical response to a stimulus without the motivation to act: e.g. feeling genuinely afraid

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 3

during a horror movie but not running out of the theater). Role-play BDSM is a similar game of stepping into a predefined game of make-believe, complete with props, storylines, and the experience of quasi-emotions. Seen in this way, BDSM fits more into the concept in Newmahr (2010a) of BDSM activities being “serious leisure” instead of tamed versions of criminal impulses or merely “kinky sex” (p. 314).

BDSM couples

As noted above, much has been debated about the individual engaging in BDSM activities, but there is also the dimension of functioning and satisfaction in the relationship itself. Several theoretical perspectives offer some insight into why BDSM activities and dynamics work and may contribute to relationship satisfaction. Structural family therapy and sys- tems theory, which look at hierarchy, subsystems, and roles within relationships (Keim & Lappin, 2002; Minuchin, 1974), might suggest that the explicit, negotiated roles and inter- action patterns in BDSM relationships help to alleviate relational conflict stemming from differing expectations and conflicting relational and household roles. For instance, couples may decide that the Dominant always initiates sex as part of being “in charge,” whereas perhaps a submissive handles all the bills as part of their service to their Dominant. Thus, arguments about who does what might be less common than in more egalitarian couples, where navigating division of labor and romantic rituals may be more ambiguous (if overtly discussed at all). Thus, the complementarity of roles between Dominants and sub- missives may help facilitate homeostasis.

Some approaches to couples’ therapy and related research have demonstrated the use of play and humor in working through disagreements and fostering more intimate bonds in couples, as well as creating positive shared experiences (Casado-Kehoe, Vanderbleek, & Thanasiu, 2007; Schaefer, 2003; Vanderbleek, 2005; Vanderbleek, Robinson, Casado- Kehoe, & Young, 2011). This might be a particularly useful lens when considering couples who do not have a D/s relationship (e.g. masochism or bondage outside of a power dynamic). This idea of play is related to Csikszentmihalyi’s (1991) flow (altered state of consciousness) and Baumeister’s (1988) escape from self, as was found by studying the subjective experiences of BDSM participants right after engaging in a scene (Ambler et al., 2017). From these perspectives, one explanation for relationship satisfaction in couples who practice BDSM may be the result of increased relational bonding and shared stress relief that occurs during the play and altered states of consciousness of exploring BDSM activities together.

Past research has supported this hypothesis that BDSM participation correlates with higher relationship satisfaction. One qualitative study found that 88% of 146 master/slave respondents expressed being satisfied with their relationship and 71% reported being more satisfied with it now than when it started (Dancer et al., 2006). The purpose and design of Dancer et al. (2006), however, was to see whether such relationships exist and how they work but not whether they are satisfying. Additionally, this study did not require that participants be in romantic relationships with their BDSM partner; indeed, some BDSM couples in the sample were explicitly not romantically or sexually involved, so the results may not generalize to all BDSM romantic couples. Another study explored sexual functioning in BDSM versus non-BDSM sexual contexts for individuals who identified as practicing BDSM (Pascoal, Cardoso, & Henriques, 2015). The researchers found that

4 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

context made more of a difference for men than women in regards to sexual response functioning, though men and women reported equal levels of sexual satisfaction. These studies have provided valuable insight into BDSM couplehood, but as of yet no quantita- tive study has explicitly explored the association between BDSM and relationship satisfaction.

Purpose of the current study

The current study surveyed individuals who identified as participating in BDSM activities and endorsed being in a committed, romantic relationship with at least one person. Because some previous literature has hypothesized that women are culturally compelled into participation of BDSM by patriarchal role norms, we included gender and BDSM role as variables. We aimed to do the following:

(1) Describe demographic and BDSM role characteristics of a sample of individuals engaging in BDSM practices that are in committed relationships.

(2) Describe the reported level of relationship satisfaction as compared to criterion clin- ical cut-off scores on the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS; Busby, Christen- sen, Crane, & Larson, 1995), and the subscale scores.

(3) Examine differences in relationship satisfaction based on gender and BDSM role (e.g. Dominant, submissive, bottom, Top).

Methods

Participants

Participants for this study were recruited through advertisements on two websites targeted at BDSM participants (FetLife.com and EroticAwakening.com) and participants were encouraged to share the study with other BDSM practitioners. The sample consisted of individual participants, though participants may have asked their partners to participate as well. Additionally, participants were instructed that if they were in non-monogamous relationships, they should choose a “primary” relationship to refer to throughout the study. Advertisements contained a brief introduction to the study as well as a hyperlink to the survey, which was hosted by SurveyMonkey through the St Cloud State University (SCSU) Statistical Consulting and Research Center, where the first author was a student at the time.

Measures

The online survey consisted of three parts: basic demographic information, BDSM partici- pation, and the RDAS. Labels of sexual orientation, BDSM roles, and BDSM participation levels were taken from the profile options on FetLife.com, the primary social networking site of the BDSM community. This site has over a million users and integrates user feed- back, so it was considered a BDSM-friendly source for demographic labels. These labels are not defined on FetLife.com; users choose which they feel best describes themselves based on their own interpretations. Thus, categories used in the survey were also not

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 5

defined for participants; it was up to participants to interpret options, such as the partici- pation levels of “Only in the Bedroom” and “I live the lifestyle 24/7” and sexual orienta- tion labels such as “pansexual” and “queer.” Additionally, several items had the option to type in a response (sexual orientation, ethnicity, and relationship type). This was viewed as a more inclusive approach than defining options for participants.

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale

The RDAS was adapted from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976) by Busby et al. (1995). The RDAS is a scale consisting of 14 Likert-scale items. The Likert scales are scored from 0 to 4 or 5, such that a higher score correlates with greater relationship satis- faction. Not all the questions are equally weighted; 13 of the items are 5-point scales and one is a 4-point scale (“Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together?”). Cri- terion scores have been developed to distinguish distressed couples from non-distressed couples (Crane, Middleton, & Bean, 2000). In distressed and non-distressed samples, the RDAS has been shown not to differ significantly from the DAS in measuring dyadic adjustment and was able to distinguish between the two samples (Busby et al., 1995). Additionally, the RDAS has been compared to both the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Satisfaction with Married Life Scale and found to be on par with both (Crane et al., 2000; Ward, Lundberg, Zabriskie, & Berrett, 2009). The RDAS has good internal consistency (a = .90) and split-half reliability of .94 and .95 (Guttman and Spearman- Brown, respectively; Busby et al., 1995). With the current sample, internal consistency remained adequate (a = .83).

Procedures

Data collection procedures were approved in advance by the SCSU Institutional Review Board (SCSUIRB# 1248-1499). Participants were notified before taking the survey that participation was voluntary, no compensation would be provided, and all data would be collected anonymously and stored in aggregate. This informed consent included possible risks and benefits of participation as well as contact information for the study’s research- ers. Participants were required to electronically agree to the informed consent, affirming that they are over 18 years old and agreed to participate. Data were collected for eight weeks.

Participants were required to answer each item on the RDAS to continue in the survey. A number of participants dropped out before the RDAS was completed. This participant data was not used in data analysis. Also, a portion of the sample reported not currently being in a committed relationship, and because the validity of the RDAS has not been tested on those who are casually dating or separated, these participants’ scores were also not included in data analysis. The RDAS and relationship status items were therefore mandatory for valid data analysis. All other items (e.g. BDSM role, relationship type, gen- der, etc.) were not required to participate, therefore totals of these items may vary. How- ever, the majority of respondents included in data analysis had no missing items (86%, n = 140). See the “Data inclusion” section under the “Findings” section for more informa- tion on item responses.

6 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

Analysis plan

Descriptive statistics were obtained for three sections of the survey (demographics, BDSM participation, and partner BDSM participation). The mean RDAS score and standard deviation for the sample were obtained and compared to the scale’s clinical criterion score (Crane et al., 2000). A cross tabulation was made between gender and BDSM role to examine whether women are more likely to be submissives and men are more likely to be Dominants. A t-test comparing RDAS scores between the male and female participants of the study was run. A final t-test was run comparing RDAS scores of those in receiving roles (“bottom” and “submissive”) with those in giving roles (“Top” and “Dominant”).

Findings

Data inclusion

Of 269 participants who initiated the survey, 267 agreed to the informed consent. Of these, 71% (n = 191) completed the RDAS portion of the survey. The participants who did not finish dropped out at one of the three items: agreement on religious matters (n = 63), discussing divorce or separation (n = 8), and getting on each other’s nerves (n = 7). This section was placed before demographics, and thus we did not analyze differences between those who dropped out and those who filled out the remaining survey.

As mentioned previously, only those who reported being either in a committed rela- tionship or legally married (85% of those who completed the required items listed above; n = 163) were included. Those who reported being single, dating, divorced, separated, or widowed (totaling 13.5% of the sample) were not included.

Demographic statistics

Table 1 provides information on the demographic information the participants provided and Table 2 provides demographic information participants reported on their partners.

A cross-tabulation revealed a statistically significant difference in BDSM roles between men and women, x2(7, N = 159) = 49.521, p < .01. Women were predominantly submis- sive while men were predominantly Dominant. Men were more likely than women to identify as Switch. More women than men identified as masochist. Overall, however, there were few participants who identified primarily as sadist or masochist.

Relationship satisfaction

The average participant (M = 50.3, SD = 7.2) scored above the criterion score on the total RDAS score, thus answering similarly to a non-distressed individual (Crane et al., 2000). Though there are not criterion scores available for the subscales, we present for compari- son the means of the BDSM sample from the present study, and the means of the RDAS from the scale’s original article for both distressed and non-distressed samples (Table 3; Crane et al., 2000).

Comparisons of means were conducted on the RDAS scores by factors of gender and BDSM role (Table 4) in preparation for means comparisons. Relationship satisfaction and BDSM roles were also examined. Although they are not the same, bottoms and

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 7

submissives were grouped together and Tops and Dominants were grouped together, as together they represent the two sides of BDSM power exchange, which is a continuum more so than discrete, easily-defined categories. As such, Switches were not considered, as they are conceptually in the “middle” of the power dynamic spectrum. These four groups consisted of 116 participants. The two polarized groups were called “submissives” (N = 60) and “Dominants” (N = 60). Sadists and masochists were not included there were only 3 and 5 such participants, respectively.

Tests of homogeneity of variance and normality of distribution were conducted on each set of variables. Shapiro–Wilk tests of normality on gender and BDSM role revealed significances at p < .05 for both, but due to the small sample size, Q-Q plots were used for comparison and found to follow a linear pattern. A Levene’s test, which is less sensitive to normality, was used to test equality of variances and found to be significant for gender

Table 1. Demographic information of participants (N = 163). N %

Gender Male 75 46 Female 84 51.5 Transgender 3 1.8 Education High school 10 6.1 Some college/two-year degree 64 39.3 Four-year degree 53 32.5 Graduate or professional degree 34 20.9 Relationship type Monogamous 71 46.7 Polyamorous 49 32.2 Open relationship 32 21.1 Sexual orientation Heterosexual 84 53.8 Homosexual 4 2.6 Bisexual 49 31.4 Pansexual 17 10.9 Asexual 0 0.0 Unsure 2 1.3 Ethnicity* White 156 95.7 American Indian 7 4.3 Middle Eastern 3 1.8 Asian 1 0.6 Hispanic/Latino 1 0.6 Level of BDSM participation Just curious 2 1.2 Once in a while 13 8 Only in the bedroom 25 15 I live the lifestyle when I can 72 44.7 I live the lifestyle 24/7 49 30.4 BDSM role Top 12 7.3 Bottom 7 4.3 Dominant 48 29.4 Submissive 53 32.5 Switch 34 20.1 Sadist 3 1.8 Masochist 4 2.5

Note: Percentages are of the entire sample and may not total 100%, as answers to these questions were not required. * Multiple selections per participant were allowed.

8 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

but not significant for BDSM role at the p < .05 level (based on both the means and medians for each).

Mean scores on the RDAS were not statistically significantly different between male- and female-identified participants at a .05 significance level (t(157) = .903; there were not enough transgender participants for comparison (N = 3). Relationship satisfaction and BDSM roles were also examined. These two groups were not statistically significantly dif- ferent at a .05 significance level (t(118) = .516). Below is a table listing the values for gen- der, role, and RDAS scores.

Discussion

The current study sought to compare relationship satisfaction among 163 individuals in committed relationships who participate in consensual BDSM activities. As in most pub- lished studies on BDSM, the participants in this study were White and highly educated

Table 2. Demographic information of partners. N %

Sexual orientation of partner Heterosexual 102 62.6 Homosexual 5 15.3 Bisexual 20 24.5 Pansexual 9 5.5 Asexual 1 0.6 Other 3 1.8 Level of BDSM participation Just curious 9 5.6 Once in a while 20 12.5 Only in the bedroom 24 15 I live the lifestyle when I can 63 39.4 I live the lifestyle 24/7 44 27.5 BDSM role Top 7 4.3 Bottom 10 6.2 Dominant 55 34.2 Submissive 44 27.3 Switch 25 15.5 Sadist 5 3.1 Masochist 3 1.9 Other 12 7.5

Table 3. RDAS subscale scores consensus. N Mean Std. Deviation

Consensus BDSM sample 163 22.3 4.2 Non-distressed (Crane et al., 2000) 288 24.2 3.1 Distressed (Crane et al., 2000) 196 20.1 3.9

Satisfaction BDSM sample 163 15.5 2.3 Non-distressed (Crane et al., 2000) 288 15.7 2.2 Distressed (Crane et al., 2000) 196 12.2 3.1

Cohesion BDSM sample 163 12.5 2.9 Non-distressed (Crane et al., 2000) 288 12.4 2.8 Distressed (Crane et al., 2000) 196 9.3 3.3

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 9

(Sheff & Hammers, 2011). Similar to Pascoal et al. (2015), who did not require a primary partner as inclusion criteria, our sample was about half heterosexual, and one-third bisex- ual. Also similar to Pascoal et al. (2015), slightly less than half stated they were monoga- mous, with the remaining reporting they were polyamorous or in an open relationship. The majority of people in this sample participated in a BDSM lifestyle when they could or 24/7, as opposed to just once in a while or only in the bedroom. Few identified as sadist or masochist, confirming previous studies that have found participants most interested in pain to be the minority (Newmahr, 2010a). Thus, this sample appeared similar in demo- graphics to previous studies, and consisted mostly of individuals who report engaging in fairly regular BDSM activity.

The results of the study suggest that people participating in our sample were not dis- tressed in their primary intimate relationship. Additionally, men and women in the BDSM population appear to have similar levels of relationship satisfaction. Participants identifying as the two main of BDSM roles (submissive and Dominant) also had similar levels of relationship satisfaction. As no previous study has presented a quantitative mea- sure for relationship satisfaction in the BDSM population, it was believed there was not sufficient precedence to examine differences in RDAS subscales by BDSM role and gender and therefore beyond the scope of the current study.

Clinical implications

The current study adds to the previous body of the literature supporting an approach to BDSM-identified clients that does not focus on dysfunction, as the researchers found no apparent distress in this sample, according to criterion scores. This quantitative finding is applicable to those providing therapy to clients in relationships, especially for the percent- age of clinicians who stated they are unsure if BDSM is healthy in relationships (Kelsey et al., 2013). Hopefully this will encourage a higher degree of acceptance and support from therapists.

Research studies surveying BDSM practitioners report that some of the negative thera- peutic experiences involve therapists assuming the BDSM practitioner is unhealthy and self-destructive, has a history of abuse, abandoning a client due to their BDSM practice, focusing on BDSM instead of the presenting problem, and does not have the necessary knowledge about BDSM (Kolmes et al., 2006). Therapists have also insisted that clients give up their BDSM activities (Kolmes et al., 2006). Kelsey et al. (2013) found that amongst 766 surveyed psychotherapists, about one-third were unsure or did not think that one could have a healthy relationship if one participated in BDSM. Though the authors note a positive trend compared to previous studies, they were alarmed that more

Table 4. Gender, BDSM roles, and RDAS scores. N Mean Std. Deviation

Women 84 50.15 7.76 Men 75 50.40 6.68 Submissives* 60 50.52 7.87 Dominants** 60 49.78 7.70 * Submissives and bottoms combined. ** Dominants and Tops combined.

10 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

practitioners were seeing clients engaging in BDSM than were reporting competence, thus suggesting a need for greater knowledge amongst therapist regarding BDSM.

In a qualitative study of therapists who regularly provide clinical services to clients who engage in BDSM, Lawrence and Love-Crowell (2008) also found some therapists ques- tioned the effect of BDSM on long-term relationships, despite the affirming stance of the sample. Yet, one participant noted that even if a couple is struggling, the purpose of cou- ple’s therapy in this population can be to “help them with contracts, safe contracts, rela- tionship contracts” (p. 77). Because the subculture emphasizes communication and negotiation of needs and desires with partners (Butts, 2007; Dancer et al., 2006; Newmahr, 2010b; Nichols, 2006), therapists could build on those strengths to assist in getting each person’s needs met in the relationship.

Theoretical implications and feminist critique

In the broader discourse on power, marginalization, and sexual agency amongst feminists, BDSM and SM in particular have become polarizing issue. Though there are nuances, there are overall two perspectives: one believes that sex and relationships containing an unequal power dynamic or physical pain, regardless of consent, is inherently reminiscent of and thereby validates patriarchal oppression, and the other side believes that criticism is just another form of majority discrimination of a counter-cultural sexual expression that actually empowers women. Most of this debate has occurred theoretically, without significant reference to data. The current study attempts to provide data to this debate by exploring whether or not relationship satisfaction varies by either gender or BDSM role (submissive versus Dominant).

The purpose and results of the current study can be situated in a perspective astutely set forth by Maneesha Deckha (2011). The author writes from a postcolonial feminist per- spective, which evolved as a response to feminism largely focusing only on women’s issues from a Western perspective. She alleges that feminists who oppose BDSM are committing the same transgression as, in one example, Westerners who decry Muslim headcoverings without having any knowledge of the women’s cultural contexts. BDSM, she writes, is a domestic subculture that should be approached the same way that many Western femi- nists have come to approach other unfamiliar cultural practices: learn the contexts and understand the culture before offering critiques or condemnations. She suggests three steps to achieve this “world-traveling” perspective: understanding our own context first, finding parallels to what we know (which requires we educate ourselves about the Other, to find adequate likenesses), then recognizing that one’s perceptions of the Other culture may be tinted by hegemonic representations. Additionally, experiences of those within the BDSM culture must be given consideration, which she alleges has not been the case in much of the debate.

In some ways, the mere existence of the current study commits the same outsider bias that Deckha (2011) hopes to change. Foucault’s (1978) concept of discrimination by delineation applies; by presenting a hypothesis that BDSM participants are no different from anyone else, there is an implicit assumption that it is not the case, that they are obvi- ously different (since one would not waste time comparing an apple to an apple). More- over, applying a discrete quantitative measure to a widely various population belies a certain misunderstanding of the subculture (see next section). However, since BDSM

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 11

culture has already been situated as Other, the process Deckha (2011) advocates should begin in order to begin: to find parallels in one’s own culture one must better understand the Other culture, and to understand another culture, one must study it, using multiple methods and from multiple perspectives. As it stands, this study supports the notion that those who fundamentally oppose the practice of BDSM may be operating under hege- monic perceptions and not a thorough understanding of the culture.

The other main contribution of this study to the feminist BDSM debate is the inclusion of participant’s subjective experiences. First, this study found no significant differences between male and female BDSM participants. While the discursive construction of reali- ties is an integral concept to understanding subcultures, it would be unwise to dismiss out of hand the relationship satisfaction these female participants proclaim to enjoy simply because they may have internalized Western patriarchal norms of female inferiority. The same caution should be applied in regards to the large sub-category of women in this study whose self-identify as a submissive or bottom; that there were no statistically signifi- cant differences in relationship satisfaction between submissives/bottoms and Dominants/ Tops supports the validity of submissives’ subjective experiences. This is an integral piece in considering the subjective experiences of subculture members, as Deckha (2011) advo- cates and provides support for a more emic or ethnographic approach to determining whether and when BDSM activities are not considered anathema by the feminist community.

Perhaps exploring BDSM relationships through a family system lens provides a less pathological point of view. As noted above, BDSM couples may possess several strengths – such as complementarity of roles, communication and negotiation skills, and use of play- fulness. Though not specifically tested in our study, these constructs from family systems theory help contradict the more pathological viewpoint that is often proposed by psycho- analytic theory and some feminist theory. As more research demonstrates the health of couples practicing BDSM, future research may benefit from moving beyond the concept of function/dysfunction or satisfaction/dissatisfaction and begin utilizing measures that assess system concepts that elucidate the strengths of BDSM couples. By developing this more nuanced understanding, clinicians would be able to build on strengths of couples presenting for therapy.

Limitations and considerations of current research

Before generalizing these results, sampling issues must be considered. For example, this was a convenience sample, not a probability sample. It is likely that the participants reached through a kinky social networking site and a communal snowball method limited the sample to those who were the most comfortable with identifying as a BDSM practi- tioner. It is possible that results would be different if BDSM participants who are not com- fortable with their BDSM interests were included. In addition, it is conceivable that those who are satisfied in their relationships would be more likely to answer a survey about rela- tionships. This sample also had very few participants who were “just curious,” meaning they have an interest but have not engaged in BDSM activity (N = 2), which is a further limitation that may have altered results. Additionally, throughout data collection the pri- mary investigator was contacted multiple times about the restrictions required by the use of the RDAS. These criticisms fell primarily into one of the two categories: those relating

12 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

to non-monogamy and those relating to kinky relationships in particular. One participant cautioned that the study would have a detrimentally limited sample due to only accepting participants in dyadic romantic relationships which were identified as “committed.” Moreover, while the survey instructed participants to respond in regard to their “primary partner,” some non-monogamous participants felt uncomfortable with being required to “rate” which of their relationships was primary (participants were encouraged not to take the survey several times). This feedback indicated a dissatisfaction with the method among some participants that needs to be considered. In a similar way, the methods of this study make certain assumptions about sexuality, relationships, and BDSM, which may not align with or make sense to many in the broader kink community. The RDAS asks participants to provide answers to complex questions on discrete 4- and 5-point scales, which can be problematic for individuals that may take pride in not being easily defined. Items of the RDAS were either particularly problematic for this sample, or they may have changed their mind about participating, as indicated by the large drop in partic- ipation once participants reached the survey. It is noteworthy that the first item on the RDAS is related to consensus on religious matters. Because this item was placed before demographics, we were unable to determine the demographics of those who dropped out. The RDAS places significant importance on everyday interactions that may not occur for some BDSM participants; for instance, in a master–slave relationship where one partner makes all major decisions for the couple, consensus on various topics might be irrelevant to their relationship satisfaction. Some participants may also have taken offense to the exclusion of their non-sexual relationships, as these may be as important as or more so than romantic relationships for some kinky individuals. A scale specifically for non- monogamous or non-sexual intimate relationships could be helpful, particularly if created with the input of the non-monogamous and kink communities. To include participants who may feel less comfortable aligning themselves with the BDSM “label,” future researchers could adjust the language used to identify specific behaviors instead of relying on a label to recruit participants (indeed, even some open members of the kinky popula- tion may dislike the term “BDSM”).

We feel it necessary to acknowledge there are many facets of the feminist debate we are not addressing here. We measured whether or not women reported they felt they were sat- isfied, agreed with their partner, and were close to their partner. To be more in line with the debate, we could have found a measure of oppression – though most likely that would have been quite offensive to participants who did not even like items about agreeing with your partner. We also have not fully addressed the issue of values that is core to much of the feminist debate. To address where one’s values lie and how to draw that line is beyond the scope of this paper, and thus we refer the reader to Deckha (2011) or Chancer (2000) for a third wave feminist review that seems to move the debate forward.

Future directions

Though we caution therapists not to make BDSM the focus of therapy when it is not the presenting problem, when couples do have discrepant interests more clinical research is needed to provide guidance on case conceptualization and treatment planning. Using more theory in future research would assist in development of how the practice of BDSM contributes to the strengths and challenges for couples. Many have noted the stigma

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 13

attached BDSM, likening it to stigma faced by other sexual minority populations (Kolmes et al., 2006; Lawrence & Love-Crowell, 2008). Future research could also look for evidence of minority stress in this population, and compare how much, if at all, being connected to a BDSM community and broader subculture mediates the effects of that stress. As the researchers did not investigate a directional hypothesis, it would be beneficial for future research to consider whether BDSM leads to greater relationship satisfaction, or whether satisfied couples are more likely to initiate participation than less satisfied couples. New relationship satisfaction scales that address non-monogamous populations are needed. Finally, this project was done as a master’s thesis with limited resources. We hope future researchers add depth to the understanding of what BDSM relationships look like and what leads to higher relationship satisfaction (e.g. clear negotiation of relationship agree- ments, new shared experiences, etc.).

Conclusion

This study was the first to examine relationship satisfaction in individuals who participate in BDSM activities. Results indicate that BDSM couples were not over the clinical crite- rion threshold on the RDAS. The current sample also did not differ in relationship satis- faction based on gender or primary BDSM roles. The current study adds itself to the wealth of previous research that presents BDSM individuals as being indistinguishable from the general population. Moreover, it adds quantitative support to the proposal of high relationship satisfaction in BDSM couples, which has so far been explored primarily through small-scale case studies using qualitative methods. While not without its limita- tions, these results will need to be considered in future conversations of whether BDSM is harmful to individuals, sustainable in healthy relationships, and congruent with a feminist identity and culture.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like first and foremost to thank the participants of the current study, as the authors recognize it is a sensitive and complex topic for many. We would also like to thank Fetlife. com and EroticAwakenings.com for assisting in the recruitment of participants. Lastly we would like to thank St Cloud State University’s Marriage and Family Therapy program for supporting the execution of the current study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Hannah Rogakme is a licensed marriage and family therapist whose clinical interests include sexu- ality and gender issues, especially those of sexual minority populations.

Jennifer Jo Connor is a licensed marriage and family therapist and an associate professor in the Pro- gram of Human Sexuality at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Her research interests include women’s sexual and reproductive health, such as vulvodynia and infertility.

14 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR

References

Ambler, J. K., Lee, E. M., Klement, K. R., Loewald, T., Comber, E. M., Hanson, S. A., … Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Consensual BDSM facilitates role-specific altered states of consciousness: A preliminary study. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 75–91. doi:10.1037/ cns0000097

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Masochism as escape from self. Journal of Sex Research, 25(1), 28–59. doi:10.1080/00224498809551444

Busby, D. M., Christensen, C., Crane, D. R., & Larson, J. H. (1995). A revision of the dyadic adjust- ment scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidi- mensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308. doi:10.1111/j.1752- 0606.1995.tb00163.x

Butts, A. M. (2007). “Signed, sealed, delivered… I’m yours”: Calibrating body ownership through the consensual mastery/slavery dynamic. Sexuality & Culture, 11(2), 62–76. doi:10.1007/s12119- 007-9003-9

Casado-Kehoe, M., Vanderbleek, L., & Thanasiu, P. (2007). Play in couples counseling. The Family Journal, 15(2), 133–136. doi:10.1177/1066480706297847

Chancer, L. S. (2000). From pornography to sadomasochism: Reconciling feminist differences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571(1), 77–88.

Coalition for a Feminist Sexuality and against Sadomasochism. (1983). Notes and letters: The Bar- nard conference. Feminist Studies, 9(1), 180–182.

Connolly, P. H. (2006). Psychological functioning of bondage/domination/sado-masochism (BDSM) practitioners. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(1), 79–120. doi:10.1300/J056v18n01_05

Crane, D. R., Middleton, K. C., & Bean, R. A. (2000). Establishing criterion scores for the Kansas marital satisfaction scale and the revised dyadic adjustment scale. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(1), 53–60. doi:10.1080/019261800261815

Cross, P. A., & Matheson, K. (2006). Understanding sadomasochism: An empirical examination of four perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 133–166. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_07

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Dancer, P. L., Kleinplatz, P. J., & Moser, C. (2006). 24/7 SM slavery. Journal of Homosexuality, 50

(2–3), 81–101. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_05 Deckha, M. (2011). Pain as culture: A postcolonial feminist approach to S/M and women’s agency.

Sexualities, 14(2), 129–150. doi:10.1177/1363460711399032 Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York, NY: Random House. Freud, S. (1962). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books. Hawthorne, S. (2005). Ancient hatred and its contemporary manifestation: The torture of lesbians.

The Journal of Hate Studies, 4(1), 33–58. Hopkins, P. D. (1997). Rethinking sadomasochism: Feminism, interpretation, and simulation. In A.

Soble (Ed.), The philosophy of sex (pp. 116–141). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Keim, J., & Lappin, J. (2002). Structural-strategic marital therapy. In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson

(Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 86–117). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kelsey, K., Stiles, B. L., Spiller, L., & Diekhoff, G. M. (2013). Assessment of therapists’ attitudes

towards BDSM. Psychology & Sexuality, 4(3), 255–267. doi:10.1080/19419899.2012.655255 Kennedy, H. (2002). Research and commentaries on Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Karl Heinrich

Ulrichs. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 165–178. doi:10.1300/J082v42n01_09 Klein, M., & Moser, C. (2006). SM (Sadomasochistic) interests as an issue in a child custody pro-

ceeding. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 233–242. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_11 Kolmes, K., Stock, W., & Moser, C. (2006). Investigating bias in psychotherapy with BDSM clients.

Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 301–324. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_15 Lawrence, A. A., & Love-Crowell, J. (2008). Psychotherapists’ experience with clients who engage in

consensual sadomasochism: A qualitative study. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 34(1), 67– 85. doi:10.1080/00926230701620936

SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 15

Linden, R. R., Pagano, D. R., Russell, D. E. H., & Star, S. L. (Eds.). (1982). Against sadomasochism: A radical feminist analysis. East Palo Alto, CA: Frog in the Well.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. New York, NY: Basic Books. Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. J. (2006). DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: An argument for removal.

Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17(3–4), 91–109. doi:10.1300/J056v17n03_05 Newmahr, S. (2010a). Rethinking kink: Sadomasochism as serious leisure. Qualitative Sociology, 33

(3), 313–331. doi:10.1007/s11133-010-9158-9 Newmahr, S. (2010b). Power struggles: Pain and authenticity in SM play. Symbolic Interaction, 33

(3), 389–411. doi:10.1525/si.2010.33.3.389 Nichols, M. (2006). Psychotherapeutic issues with “kinky” clients: Clinical problems, yours and

theirs. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 281–300. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_14 Oosterhuis, H. (2012). Sexual modernity in the works of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Albert Moll.

Medical History, 56(2), 133–155. doi:10.1017/mdh.2011.30 Pascoal, P. M., Cardoso, D., & Henriques, R. (2015). Sexual satisfaction and distress in sexual func-

tioning in a sample of the BDSM community: A comparison study between BDSM and non�BDSM contexts. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(4), 1052–1061. doi:10.1111/jsm.12835

Powls, J., & Davies, J. (2012). A descriptive review of research relating to sadomasochism: Consider- ations for clinical practice. Deviant Behavior, 33(3), 223–234. doi:10.1080/ 01639625.2011.573391

Reinisch, J. M., & Beasley, R. (1990). The Kinsey Institute new report on sex. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Richters, J., De Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. M. (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), 1660– 1668. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x

Ridinger, R. B. (2006). Negotiating limits: The legal status of SM in the United States. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 189–216. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_09

Schaefer, C. E. (Ed.). (2003). Play therapy with adults. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sheff, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: Race, class and education among pol-

yamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(3), 198–223. doi:10.1080/ 19419899.2010.537674

Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of mar- riage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38(1), 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547

Stear, N. (2009). Sadomasochism as make-believe. Hypatia, 24(2), 21–38. doi:10.1111/j.1527- 2001.2009.01030.x

Vanderbleek, L. (2005). Couple play as a predictor of couple bonding, physical health and emotional health (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromhttp://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/409/

Vanderbleek, L., Robinson, E. H., Casado-Kehoe, C., & Young, M. E. (2011). The relationship between play and couple satisfaction and stability. The Family Journal, 19(2), 132–139. doi:10.1177/1066480711399729

Ward, P. J., Lundberg, N. R., Zabriskie, R. B., & Berrett, K. (2009). Measuring marital satisfaction: A comparison of the revised dyadic adjustment scale and the satisfaction with married life scale. Marriage and Family Review, 45(4), 412–429. doi:10.1080/01494920902828219

Weinberg, T. S. (2006). Sadomasochism and the social sciences: A review of the sociological and social psychological literature. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 17–40. doi:10.1300/ J082v50n02_02

Wismeijer, A. A. J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2013). Psychological characteristics of BDSM practi- tioners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 1943–1952. doi:10.1111/jsm.12192

Wright, S. (2006). Discrimination of SM-identified individuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 217–231. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_10

Wright, S. (2010). Depathologizing consensual sexual sadism, sexual masochism, transvestic fetish- ism, and fetishism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1229–1230. doi:10.1007/s10508-010- 9651-y

16 H. M. E. ROGAK AND J. J. CONNOR