The Experience of Being in A Long Term, Monogamous, Heterosexual Relationship That Regularly Incorporates BDSM

Running head: MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS
The Experience of Being in a

Long Term, Monogamous, Heterosexual Relationship
That Regularly Incorporates BDSM
by
Lena Agree
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan School of Professional Psychology
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Psychology
July 2014
UMI Number: 3635386
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3635386
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS
This dissertation was approved by the doctoral committee:

Ann E-C Smith, PsyD, Committee Chair
Kevin Keenan, PhD, Faculty Advisor
Myrtle Means, PhD, Consultant
Abstract
This study examined the question, What is the experience of being in a long-term, monogamous,
heterosexual relationship that regularly incorporates BDSM? A review of the literature revealed
that BDSM has frequently been pathologized through conflation with paraphilias or with sadistic
or masochistic personality disorders. It has also been simply defended as a form of leisure
activity or manifestation of sexual orientation. This investigation applied the qualitative method
of narrative inquiry to capture the story of the participants BDSM relationships. Detailed
accounts of eight relationships were obtained in semi-structured, in-depth, joint interviews. The
following six common themes were identified: (a) Heterogeneity among relationships, (b) The
role of pain in physical play, (c) The emotional function of SM, (d) Attraction to SM structure,
(e) The importance of the SM community, and (f) Concern over boundaries. The findings of this
study evidence the diversity and complexity of these relationships, particularly regarding the
underlying attraction to this lifestyle, a topic that has been largely neglected in the literature.
Based on analysis of the data, the researcher offered hypotheses regarding the role of BDSM in
emotion regulation, as a transitional phenomenon used to deny an ungratifying external world,
and as a vehicle for achieving enhanced intimacy and dyadic closeness within a monogamous
relationship.
Keywords: BDSM, sadomasochism, paraphilia, monogamous relationship, alternative lifestyle
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I - The Meaning of the Research Question ................................................................ 7
Social, Clinical and Personal Relevance ............................................................................. 8
Key Terms and Definitions ............................................................................................... 14
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER II - Review of Literature ............................................................................................ 19

Evidence from Ancient Sources........................................................................................ 19
Early Modern Views ......................................................................................................... 20
Freud and the Development of the Psychoanalytic Perspective ....................................... 22
Psychiatric Perspectives, as Reflected in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ............. 30
Studies Evincing the Relative Mental Health of SM Practitioners ................................... 32
SM as a Sociological Phenomenon ................................................................................... 34
Modern Psychodynamic Perspectives............................................................................... 42
Cognitive Research ........................................................................................................... 50
Interpersonal Behavior Perspectives ................................................................................. 51
Criticisms of the Extant Literature .................................................................................... 54
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER III The Research Model, Methods and Procedures ................................................ 56
The Narrative Research Model ........................................................................................ 56
Methods and Procedures Used in Preparation for the Collection of Data ........................ 59
Methods and Procedures Used in the Collection of Data ................................................. 60
Methods and Procedures Used in the Organization and Analysis of Data ....................... 64
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER IV - Presentation of Findings ..................................................................................... 70
Couple #1 Angela and Geoff ............................................................................................ 70
Couple #2 Sam and Jen ..................................................................................................... 77
Couple #3 Barry and Sabrina ............................................................................................ 83
Couple #4 Diane and Reggie ............................................................................................ 92
Couple #5 Fendi and Josh ................................................................................................. 98
Couple #6 Tammy and Jason .......................................................................................... 104
Couple #7 Blake and Karina. .......................................................................................... 109
Couple #8 John and Cindy .............................................................................................. 112
Common Themes ............................................................................................................ 121
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 128
CHAPTER V - Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................. 131
Overview of Study .......................................................................................................... 131
Comparison of Findings with the Literature .................................................................. 133
Limitations of the Research ............................................................................................ 168

Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 169
Implications and Applications of the Study .................................................................... 171
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 174
References ................................................................................................................................... 175
Appendix A - Definitions............................................................................................................ 183
Appendix B - Letter of Recruitment ........................................................................................... 185
Appendix C - Sample Guiding Questions for Interview ............................................................. 186
Appendix D - Informed Consent/Participation Release Agreement ........................................... 187
Appendix E - List of Themes, Critical Events and Discursive Elements by Couple ................ 189
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my dissertation committee for their time and investment in this project.
Their wisdom and support were invaluable. I am also deeply grateful to all of the couples who
agreed to be interviewed for this study. Their courage and candor made this project relevant,
fascinating, and more fun than I had imagined. Finally, during the past five years I have enjoyed
the privilege of working with the patient, erudite and infinitely generous MiSPP library staff, all
of whom I will miss.
Chapter I
The Meaning of the Research Question
In the novel Fifty Shades of Grey (James, 2011) the wealthy, attractive, Christian Grey
lures Anastasia Steele, a naive college graduate, into his world of opulence, excitement, and
BDSM (an acronym for bondage/discipline, domination/submission, and/or sadism/masochism;
Kleinplatz & Moser, 2004; Haber, 2013; BDSM is sometimes referred to herein as SM for
brevity). Their monogamous, loving relationship develops against a backdrop of BDSM play in
which Anastasia is introduced to the role of submissive. Captivated by the allure of Greys
dominance and sexual prowess, she soon luxuriates in his need for control, coupled with his
insatiable desire to elevate her to increasing heights of orgasmic ecstasy.
Strikingly, within the story, the physical play scenes are few, and relatively tame.
However, the psychological power dynamics and suggestions of BDSM are woven through
every interaction, inducing a constant state of heightened arousal for both the characters and the
reader.
Novels like Fifty Shades of Grey (James, 2011) are only one way Western culture
expresses its fascination with SM. Popular songs, such as Justin Timberlakes "Sexy Back" and
Depeche Modes "Master and Servant" intimate SM activity (Ashley, retrieved 2012). More
recently, in her hit song S & M, Rihanna boldly revealed her interest in the subculture without
the cover of metaphor.
Fashion is equally immersed in SM ethos. Womens fashion luminary Herve Leger (by
Max Azria) described his 2012 collection as a study in seduction and restraint, depict[ing] a
story of feminine strength through equestrian-inspired harnesses and iconic signature couture
techniques . . . [featuring] structured clutches and corset boots (p. 1). The collection could
reasonably be referred to as SM couture.

These examples reflect a cultural fascination with SM, the meaning and consequences of
which are yet unknown. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of this phenomenon.
Social, Clinical and Personal Relevance
Social Relevance. The Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy (James, 2011) had a stunning
influence on the marketplace. Since 2011, twenty million copies of the books have been sold
(Reuters, 2012). The first of the series is, to date, the fastest-selling paperback in the UK
(Leadbeater, 2012). At the time of this writing, Universal Studios had purchased the movie rights
(Reuters, 2012). It has recently inspired hotel packages that promise to recreate scenes from the
book, and was also the catalyst for a bondage bathing suit line (Ani, 2012). Clearly, there is
something about SM that people have found intriguing.
The New York Times seems to concur. In February 2013, the Fashion & Style section
featured an article tracing the recent rise of SM in the public consciousness (Haber). Aptly
entitled A hush-hush topic no more, the piece featured a litany of developments signaling an
undeniable increase in SM acculturation. Highlighting the documentary film Kink, which
premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, the Harvard College Munch, as well as various public
dungeons, fetish shops and alternative online communities, the article emphasized the recent
swell of SM expression in the United States. However, the author also remarked on the
counterblast of lost relationships, custody battles and devastating discrimination, as society
grapples with profound ambivalence over this complex topic.
In more academic circles, it has been estimated that approximately 10 percent of the
general population engages in SM (Moser & Kleinplatz, 2006, p. 4). Some claim that no formal
studies have been conducted regarding this general statistic (Moser & Kleinplatz, 2006).
However, one study found that 14 percent of men and 11 percent of women had experienced
some form of sadomasochistic sexual activity (Janus & Janus, 1993). Another study of over
19,000 Australian men and women, aged 16 to 59 years old (Richters et al., 2008) determined
that 1.8 percent of men and 1.2 percent of women reported engaging in BDSM within the past
year. The number was slightly higher among participants who had a sexual partner (2.2 percent
and 1.3 percent, respectively). However, this study was limited to people who had sexual
partners in the past year, and who characterized their activities as BDSM. Thus, the results
omitted those who did not admit engaging in SM, were unaware that their practices would be so
characterized, or did not consider the frequency of their BDSM activities significant enough to
constitute participation.
Although extant literature suggests that most people may not engage in SM activities,
studies show they frequently think about the ideas expressed in SM scenes and relationships
(e.g., Renaud & Byers, 1999; Byers, Purdon & Clark, 1998; Knafo & Jaffe, 1984). The meaning
and significance of these thoughts is uncertain, because individuals differ in their appraisal of
various sexual ideas, and sometimes characterize the same idea as both positive and negative
(Renaud and Byers, 1999). This last finding could reflect internal conflict, or the reality that a
sexual thought can be both exciting and disquieting. More research is needed to interpret these
findings.
Perhaps most importantly in terms of social relevance, SM has been described as a
socially defined phenomenon (Weinberg & Kamel, 1983; Weinberg, 1995; Newmahr, 2011).
These authors contend that SM is a predominantly social behavior, in that it relies upon shared
meanings that are learned and reinforced through participation in the SM subculture. They exhort
that even SM terminology is culturally determined, in that the meanings ascribed to the SM
10
lexicon can only be assigned by those who experience the phenomena. According to this view,
If we wish to understand SM motivations and behavior, we must look at the definitions
provided by [the participants themselves] rather than attempt to impose our own preconceived
notions upon this activity (Moser, 1979, as cited in Weinberg, 1995; Weinberg et al., 1984).
Finally, as intimated above, although the language and imagery of SM seem to riddle
Western culture, information about the subject seems distorted by speculation, presumption and
discomfort. This state of knowledge is reminiscent of Justice Stewarts self-described
understanding of hard-core pornography: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of
material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could
never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S.
184, 1964, concurring opinion).
People may believe they know SM when they see it, but the theoretical and clinical
understanding of this phenomenon is besieged by unresolved issues, including but not limited to
those surrounding:
1.
The definitions of sadism, masochism and sadomasochism (e.g., Grossman,

1986; Hewison, 2009; Maleson, 1984; Sugarman, 2013; Wurmser, 2007).
2.
The relationship between sadism and masochism (e.g., Freud, 1919).
3.
The role of sexual fantasy in behavior (e.g., Byers, Purdon & Clark, 1998).
4.
The differences between healthy or playful, and unhealthy or pathological,

sadism or masochism, if any, and the criteria by which these determinations
should be made (e.g., Baumeister, 1988; Powls & Davies, 2012).
By looking closely at people who engage in the SM lifestyle, this author hopes to demystify
aspects of these phenomena and inspire more refined research in this area.
11
Clinical Relevance. SM relationships are clinically relevant on several levels: (a) SM is a

broad topic that is likely to emerge in some form in the consulting room (e.g. Williams, 2006);
(b) issues within the ambit of SM, such as gratifying sex and power dynamics, are also pertinent
to vanilla (non-SM) relationships (Kleinplatz, 2006; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005); and (c) couples
who practice SM are considered by some to be a sexual minority, the treatment of whom may
demand particular clinical competencies (Brown, 2008).
First, as reflected in the popularity of the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy (James, 2011), SM
is on the minds of millions of people, and the spectrum of SM behaviors is wide. Thus, the
probability that psychotherapy clients will confront SM ideas or engage in an SM activity in
some form is fairly high. An incomplete list of mainstream SM practices include, being held
down, using any type of restraint, wearing constricting clothing such as a corset, spanking,
biting, using ice on the skin, and blindfolding (Moser, 1999) Also included within SM activities
are the use of conventional sex toys, and role playing (Williams, 2006). Accouterments for these
activities are sold at garden variety sex toy shops, such as Lovers Lane, which as of this date has
30 retail locations in the Midwest United States (http://www.loverslanestore.com, retrieved
2012). Even those who do not engage in SM activities have likely fantasized about it in some
way (e.g., Renaud and Byers, 1999).
SM is also relevant to various aspects of conventional intimate relationships. Kleinplatz
(2006) explains, with respect to those who incorporate SM into their relationships, Such
individuals sexual epistemology, goals, understanding of the nature and spectrum of sexual and
erotic relations, communication strategies and outcome criteria can provide valuable lessons for
those who treat sexual problems or aim to overcome sexual mediocrity (p. 325). For example,
in one qualitative study investigating the phenomenon of great sex, Kleinplatz and Menard
12
(2007) found that three groups: SM practitioners, individuals over age 65 in long-term
relationships, and sex therapists defined great sex in common terms. A more thorough discussion
of this study is set forth in the literature review. However, from a clinical perspective, it is
significant that SM practitioners and vanilla individuals presented a shared view of great sex.
The results imply that these ostensibly distinct groups seek similar sexual goals, and that it is
possible that SM could be helpful in understanding and achieving them.
SM is also relevant to vanilla relationships, in that it embodies the concepts of power,
dominance and submission, which are not fully understood by relationship theorists (e.g. Dunbar
& Burgoon, 2005; Benjamin, 1996; Strack & Lorr, 1990). As Dunbar and Burgoon assert in
connection with their study of dyadic power theory (a theory of conventional intimate
relationships), Despite their prevalence in scholarly literature, power and dominance are elusive
concepts that are defined differently by the various disciplines (p. 208). These authors describe
power as a latent feature generally defined as the capacity to produce intended effects, and in
particular, the ability to influence the behavior of another person (Bachrach & Lawler, 1981, as
cited in Dunbar & Burgoon). Drawing from earlier research by Rogers-Millar and Millar (1979),
Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) define dominance as a discernable, interpersonal, relationshipdependent variable wherein control attempts by one partner are accepted by the other. Unlike
power, in the domain of communication, dominance is not considered a personality trait, but
rather a dynamic state (p. 208): It emerges as a result of certain temperamental and situational
variables that combine to cause the one-up maneuver by one party to be met by a one-down
maneuver by the other (Rogers and Millar, as cited in Dunbar & Burgoon, p. 208,). Thus,
dominance is a behavioral indicator of power within a relationship.
13
In contrast, domineeringness is an individuals unilateral attempt to control another

(Dunbar & Burgoon, 1979, p. 208). Unlike dominance, which requires agreement or
acquiescence by the other party, power and domineeringness are monadic constructs with
potentially coercive implications that might denote personality pathology.
The ability to accurately assess and help improve intimate partner dynamics seems to
require an ability to distinguish among these variables and their manifestations. Unlike vanilla
relationships, in which these relational forces are generally subtle, SM relationships, by
definition, involve some form of negotiation and manifest expression of these dynamics. Thus, a
deeper understanding of the power exchanges occurring in SM relationships could illuminate
these issues in general.
Finally, some authors consider individuals who engage in SM to be a sexual minority
(e.g., Brown, 2008). Others refer to SM as a minority sexual orientation (Moser, 1999). As such,
Working with this group of persons requires a particular degree of cultural competence that
includes a high level of open-mindedness about sexual activities of consenting adults (Brown,
p. 36). This research aims to support greater clinical wisdom and enhanced competency on the
part of mental health practitioners in their treatment of individuals who experience
unconventional eroticism, whether it takes place in a dungeon, a bedroom, a dream, or a fleeting
thought.
Personal Relevance. This author seeks a greater understanding of SM within
monogamous relationships, in part, because she is curious about what makes a romantic
relationship truly successful. How does the conscious, negotiated distribution of power affect a
couple? What functions might it serve? Are some SM activities more beneficial or harmful than
14
others? How is that distinction made? In this researchers view, these are fundamental
relationship questions that the study of SM may help answer.
In addition, this researcher enjoys exploring the unconscious, repressed aspects of human
experience because it is arguably the most authentic part of a person. In order to journey into that
often frightening realm with clients, the therapist must be comfortable with the most conflicted
parts of herself. As Klienplatz and Moser (2004) explain, Repressed desires seem all the more
menacing. If you are less afraid of your clients' sexual desires than they are of their own secrets,
you are better able to help your clients confront their concerns (p. 4). Hence, this author seeks
an intimate understanding of SM so that she can tolerate, without fear or apprehension, the
broadest range of material introduced by her clients in the course of therapy.
Key Terms and Definitions
The research question is: What is the experience of being in a long-term, monogamous,
heterosexual relationship that regularly incorporates SM? In order for the reader to gain a clear
understanding of the research question, the following section describes and defines the terms
used in the research question. Additional terms used in this study are defined in Appendix A.
BDSM. BDSM is an acronym for several diverse concepts: bondage and discipline
(B&D), dominance and submission (D/s; traditionally, the D is capitalized, while the s is
not) and sadism and masochism (Williams, 1996). Master-slave (M/s) relationships are D/s,
except that a slave is more subservient than a submissive in a D/s relationship.
The full spectrum of BDSM behaviors is vast, as is the range of preferences, meanings,
and motivations for participation (Williams, 1996). Not all participants engage in the full ambit
of BDSM behaviors. Some participate in only one or two aspects, such as SM, but not B&D
(Williams, 1996).
15
BDSM and SM are frequently used interchangeably. Newmahr (2011) found through her
ethnographic studies of a BDSM community in the Northeastern United States that SM has
been traditionally used by members of the community to connote the myriad activities
encompassed by BDSM. Therefore, she uses SM to reference the full ambit of BDSM
activities. Other authors (Williams, 2006; Moser, 1999) use SM in a broad sense,
encapsulating BDSM concepts. Therefore, this study has adopted the traditional referent of SM
to refer to BDSM in general.
A precise definition of SM is difficult to discern, since according to Williams (2006),
SM represents a wide range of possible behaviors, and may be experienced very differently and
hold different meanings among its practitioners (p. 334). Moser (1999) suggests that there is no
generally accepted definition of SM, but that it may be colloquially defined as an erotic interest
in giving and/or receiving painful (either physically or psychologically) stimulation (Para. 4).
Weinberg, Williams & Moser Wiseman (1996) defined BDSM as the use of psychological
dominance and submission, and/or physical bondage, and/or pain, and/or related practices in a
safe, legal, consensual manner in order for the participants to experience erotic arousal and/or
personal growth (p. 40). Newmahr (2011) defines SM as the collection of activities that
involve the mutually consensual and conscious use, among two or more people, of pain, power,
perceptions about power, or any combination thereof, for psychological, emotional or sensory
pleasure (p. 18). Falk and Weinberg (1983) have noted that SM in the United States can be
generally described as erotic, consensual, and recreational. Because of the controversy
surrounding the meaning of BDSM, a more detailed discussion of the term is set forth in the
review of the literature, contained in Chapter II.
16
Experience. The APA Dictionary of Psychology (VandenBos, 2007) defines experience

as a conscious event: An event that is lived through, or undergone, as opposed to one that is
imagined or thought about; the present contents of consciousness; events that result in learning
(p. 354).
Rogers (1961) calls experience the highest authority (p. 23). He describes the fullyfunctioning person as one who is, fundamentally, experience itself. Such a person
can be his experience, with all of its variety and surface contradiction; that he can
formulate himself out of his experience, instead trying to impose a formulation of self
upon his experience, denying to awareness those elements which do not fit. (p. 80)
In Moustakass (1994) view, self-knowledge emerges from an understanding of ones
experiences. Further, knowing the self is a prerequisite to truly understanding others. He
explains:
Ultimately both personal and social knowledge are needed to arrive at valid
understandings of reality but I must first be attuned to my own being, thinking, and
choosing before I relate to others thoughts, understandings and choices. I must arrive at
my own sense of the nature and meaning of something, make my own decision regarding
its truth and value before I consider the point of view of others. (p. 62)
Heterosexual. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines heterosexual as of, relating to, or
characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex (Merriam-Webster,
n.d.). Other references, such as the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), seem
to presume that the term is self-explanatory and do not furnish a definition.
Sexual orientation. This term, sometimes viewed as the direction and expression of an
individuals sexual and romantic desires (Brown, 2008, p. 34), is considered by some authors to
exist on the dual continua of other sex and same sex attraction. From this vantage point, all
humans fall somewhere between zero and 100 percent on each continuum. Those who selfidentify as heterosexual fall in the high range on other sex attraction, and fall in the low range on
17
same sex attraction, while those who self-identify as homosexual are generally the opposite.
Individuals who self-identify as bisexual fall approximately in the middle on both spectra. Such
individuals would also identify as a three on The Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, often
referred to as the Kinsey Scale (The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and
Reproduction, 1996-2014). This self-rating device was developed in 1948 to address research
findings by Alfred Kinsey and colleagues that rejected the binary view of sexuality. The scale
ranges from zero to six, with zero representing exclusively heterosexual and six reflecting
exclusively homosexual. A rating of three means equally heterosexual and homosexual.
Brown (2008) exhorts that a persons expressed sexual orientation does not always reflect
his or her sexual desires. An individual high on opposite sex attraction and low on same sex
attraction may engage in a homosexual relationship without self-identifying as homosexual. Such
a relationship could develop simply through a strong relational connection with a particular
person.
Moreover, for some individuals, sexual orientation may be a fluid phenomenon (Brown,
2008). Brown explains:
Each person has a sexual orientation; for some individuals this is fixed throughout the
lifetime, as appears to be true for most gay and heterosexual men. For others, including
some lesbian and heterosexual women and some bisexual women and men, sexual
orientation is experienced as more fluid. (p. 34)
The nuances of sexual orientation are beyond the scope of this paper. However, it should
be noted that the limitation of the participant population to self-identified heterosexuals narrows
the focus of this study to relationships between men and women who consider themselves to be
high on other sex attraction and low on same sex attraction.
Long-term relationship. The term long-term relationship is used repeatedly in the
literature without reference to a specific duration (e.g. Mohr, Cook-Lyon & Kolchakian, 2010;
18
Firestone, Firestone & Catlitt, 2006). In their study of predicted attachment anxiety and relational
patterns among emerging adults, Mohr et al. directed participants to imagine themselves oneyear into a long-term relationship, and asked them to imagine various relational scenarios. They
presumed that after one year, couples develop patterns of relating to one another that are
projectable into the future. Based on the scant literature on this subject, long-term relationship in
this study will refer to a monogamous, romantic relationship lasting at least one continuous year.
People who practice SM have been found to switch partners often (Mohr, et al., 2010).
The criteria requiring participants to be in a long-term relationship is based on the assumption
that trust, intimacy and love require a certain amount of time to develop. This study seeks to
examine the practice of SM by couples who enjoy a trusting, intimate, and loving relationship.
Summary
This chapter discussed the meaning of the research question, together with its value from
a social, clinical and personal perspective. It also furnished definitions of the terms contained in
the research question. The next chapter presents extant literature relevant to the study and
positions the study within the field of current research and the broader literary landscape.
19
Chapter II
Review of the Literature
The experience of being in a monogamous, heterosexual, long-term, SM relationship is a
topic that has not received significant attention in the literature. The purpose of this literature
review is to furnish a survey of research relevant to various aspects of the research question. It is
intended to reveal the relevance of this study, and establish it as is a meaningful addition to the
research milieu.
Evidence from Ancient Sources
Although historians frequently cite the seventeenth century as the dawn of documented
SM-type activity (Tannehill,1980; Sisson, 2007), references to the elixir of pain and pleasure
arguably emerge in the annals of the earliest civilizations. According to Tannehill (1980),
scholars drafting the first complete dictionary of the Sumerian language (circa 3000 B.C.) were
apparently distressed to discover that a single phrase continued to emerge as, He put a hot fish
in her navel (p. 58). Reasonable minds may disagree on its meaning. However, in Tannehills
view, lovers throughout history have used the human naval as repository for a wide range of
erotically stimulating objects, and, on balance, a hot fish seems no more improbable than the ice
cubes fashionable in some circles today (1980, p. 58).
In China, evidence of dildo usage, penis rings and tinkling balls appear in texts from
the Ming period (A.D. 1368-1644; Tannahill, 1980). Tinkling balls were apparently small metal
balls that men inserted into their penis through laceration. They not only enlarged the penis, but
multiple balls also produced a ringing sound, which was associated with wealth and aristocracy.
The purpose of the balls may have been to stimulate the woman as well as to render anal sex
prohibitive due to the increased shaft size (Tannahill, 1980).
20
India is famous for the Kamasutra, compiled between the third and fifth centuries A.D.
(Tannahill, 1980 p. 200). According to this sex manual, passion is likened to a quarrel in which
it was customary for lovers to strike each other during the course of it, uttering a variety
of different sounds the while thundering, cooing, weeping, others expressive of
prohibition, sufficiency, desire of liberation, pain or praise, to which may be added
sounds like those of [various animals] (II 7). As well . . . striking (on the back, shoulders,
head, or between the breasts) bruising and scratching were de rigueur. (Tannahill, p. 208)
Reference to animal role play also appears in the sex practices of early Ottoman Sultans
(Tannahill). One Sultan in particular displayed a penchant for playing a game with his harem in
which he played the stallion while his girls pretended to be mares (p. 244).
Early Modern Views
The German psychoanalyst Richard von Krafft-Ebing is commonly credited with
originating the terms sadism and masochism in his seminal work Psychopathia Sexualis
(1885/1965; Weinberg, 1987; Weinberg & Kamel, 1995; Tayler & Ussher, 2001). Krafft-Ebing
(1885/1965) adopted the term sadism from the literary works of the French aristocrat and author
Marqui de Sade (1740-1814). Almost parotic in its depravity, De Sades erotic novels, such as
The 120 Days of Sodom, (1904/1966) glorified kidnapping, murder, rape and sex slavery of
adults and children by men who triumphed in the power to unconscionably torture others for
narcissistic and sexual gratification. Consistent with De Sades characters, Krafft-Ebing
described sadism as purely intrapsychic, profoundly abnormal, and emanating from early
childhood experience (1885/1965). He also believed it primarily afflicted males. In his words,
Sadism is the experience of sexual [sic] pleasurable sensations (including orgasm)
produced by acts of cruelty [or] bodily punishment afflicted on . . . animals or human
beings. It may also consist of an innate desire to humiliate, hurt, wound, or even destroy
others in order thereby to create sexual pleasure in ones self. (p. 25)
21
In its most extreme iterations, as aptly depicted by De Sades characters, Krafft-Ebing described
this excessive and monstrous pathological intensification (1885/1965, p. 28) of lust and cruelty
as leading to extreme violence, and possibly death.
Krafft-Ebing (1885/1965) defined masochism as,
a particular perversion of the psychical sexual life in which the individual affected, in
sexual feeling and thought, is controlled by the idea of being completely and
unconditionally subject to the will of a person of the opposite sex; of being treated by this
person as by a master, humiliated and abused. (p. 29)
He chose this term based on the author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian author who
wrote extensively about the concept, and whom Krafft-Ebing believed to be engaging in sexual
activities of this type (Weinberg & Kamel, 1995).
Krafft-Ebing (1885/1965) characterized masochism as a broader, more innocuous
preoccupation than sadism. Unlike sadism, which by definition was abusive, non-consensual,
and classified as a psychopathology that in no way affect[s] the normal individual (p. 26), He
described masochism as undertaken by individuals with some sensibility to normal stimuli (p.
29). He also believed that, unlike sadists, masochists also engaged in conventional intercourse.
Krafft-Ebing (1885/1965) also recognized the significance of fantasy in masochism,
although not in sadism. He explained that the masochist lives in fantasies, in which he creates
situations of this kind and often attempts to realize them (p. 29). In contrast, he described the
sadist as being impelled to act simply upon disinhibition and impulse.
Later, Havelock Ellis (1926) insisted that love was an integral aspect of sadomasochism.
In general, he believed the masochist sought love through the infliction of pain, and that the
sadist desired the pain he or she inflicted to be experienced as love. Moreover, consistent with
some of Freuds views (1924), he contended that the sadist was likely gratified by pleasuring the
masochist, and might identify with and thus, vicariously enjoy the pain he or she inflicted.
22
Although Ellis (1926) seemed to frame sadomasochism as non-cruel, loving, and

potentially benign, he ultimately characterized the phenomenon as an individual, biological
pathology. Pain, he concluded, was sexually stimulating, because it is the most powerful of all
methods for arousing emotion (p. 40). However, he asserted that healthy individuals do not
require such stimulation. Only those with weak sexual impulses need pain to ignite their sexual
desire. For such individuals, pain or its mental representation acts as a sexual stimulant. They
become addicted to it like a drug and come to require it for sexual arousal.
Freud and the Development of the Psychoanalytic Perspective
It has been suggested that the concept of masochism and psychoanalysis have enjoyed a
sort of marriage, developing almost concurrently under the mutual influence of one another
(Grossman, 1986). Much disparity persists among psychoanalytic authors on the subject of
sadomasochism, with such variance of opinion often being the focus of discussion (e.g. Maleson,
1984). However, points of agreement on this controversial topic include (a) its fundamental
significance in understanding the human psyche (e.g., Grossman, 1986; Maleson, 1984;
Sugarman, 2013), (b) the lack of consensus surrounding the genesis and meanings of sadism and
masochism (e.g., Grossman, 1986; Maleson, 1984; Novick & Novick, 1996), and (c) Freuds
invaluable contribution to the understanding of this issue (e.g., Sugarman, 2013; Sirios, 2010;
Maleson, 1984). In particular, the beating fantasy continues to stimulate much theoretical
commentary (e.g., Sirios, 2010; Maleson 1984) and clinical case analysis (e.g., Sugarman, 2013).
A Child is Being Beaten is considered by some to be particularly central to the development
of psychoanalytic thinking (Novick & Novick, 1996).
Since a complete discussion of Freuds treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this
work, below is a synopsis of three themes that permeate his writings and are relevant to this
23
study. These issues include: (a) the universality and innateness of sadomasochism, (b) the role of
pain in sexual excitation, and (c) the interactional relationship of sadism and masochism.
Universality and innateness. Freud (1905) defined perversions as sexual behaviors
that involved parts of the body that are not designed for sexual union or involving lingering
too long on any particular body part. He did not refine this subjective definition, although he did
provide examples, which included oral sex. He acknowledged that all people engaged in
perversions. A perversion was only pathological if it was so far removed from the normal . . .
that we cannot avoid pronouncing it pathological, or if it constituted the only means of a
persons sexual arousal (1905, p. 161). Thus, he excluded from the ambit of pathology
perversions that co-occurred alongside normal sexual behavior.
He was also clear that the disposition to perversions of every kind is a general and
fundamental human characteristic (1905, p. 191), and that [t]here is indeed something innate
lying behind the perversions but . . . it is something innate in everyone (1905, p. 171).
Freud also emphasized that sexual pathology could occur in otherwise healthy people:
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 the instincts, put themselves in the category of
sick persons in the sphere of sexual life (1905, p. 161). Although he believed that sexually
aberrant behavior stemmed from a fixation in childhood, it could later recede via repression, be
replaced through reaction formation, or altered through sublimation (1919, p. 182). He also
surmised that it might also be broken off and remain in the background of normal sexual
development, from which . . . it continues to withdraw a certain amount of energy (1919, p.
192), although he did not expound on this phenomenon.
24
In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), Freud included sadism and
masochism among the perversions. However, he considered them unique in that, in addition to
being perversions, they also comprised the normal manifestations of the sexual instinct. In his
words, Sadism and masochism occupy a special position among the perversions, since the
contrast between activity and passivity which lies behind them is among the universal
characteristics of sexual life (p. 159).
Freud considered sadism to be the active, aggressive, male expression of the sexual
instincta desire to subjugate (1905, p. 158)which developed when an aggressive
component of the sexual instinct . . . has become independent and exaggerated and, by
displacement, has usurped the leading position (p. 158). He deemed sadism to be a perversion
only when sexual satisfaction required the humiliation and maltreatment of the object (p. 158).
Similar to sadism, Freud described masochism as the passive, innately female
manifestation of the sexual instinct (1905). In this way, he associated the exaggeration and
fixation of feminine passivity with the acceptance of, or attraction to pain and suffering. In his
view, masochism constituted a perversion when satisfaction required suffering physical or
mental pain at the hands of the sexual object (p. 158).
Freud was uncertain of the genesis of masochism, but noted that it often appeared as
sadism turned upon the self (1905, 1919). He also surmised, based on severe cases, that
masochistic perversion was precipitated by many factors. Particularly, it was precipitated by a
sense of guilt associated with the Oedipus complex. This led to repression and caused the
individual to regress to the earlier sadistic-anal stage, Freuds second pre-genital (infant) phase
of normal sexuality associated with mastering the musculature of the anus (1919, p. 194).
25
The role of pain in sexual excitation. In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality
(1905), Freud remarked on the ubiquitous relationship between pain and pleasure. He
acknowledged the enigmatic connection between the two that it had been maintained that
every pain contains in itself the possibility of a feeling of pleasure (1905, p. 159). Moreover,
any organ, he declared, can function as an erotogenic zone (p. 223). However, in terms of
transmitting pleasure through pain, he considered the skin the erotogenic zone par excellence
(p. 169). For example, he noted that [a] number of people report that they experienced the first
signs of excitement in their genitals while they were romping or wrestling with playmates a
situation in which, apart from general muscular exertion, there is a large amount of contact with
the skin of the opponent (1905, pp. 202-203).
In addition to physical pain, Freud opined that painful or otherwise highly stimulating
emotions elicited a comparable libidinous response that All comparatively intense affective
processes, including even terrifying ones, trench upon sexuality (1905, p. 203). Examples
included children touching their genitals in an attempt to self-soothe, and adults seeking out
situations that elicit apprehension, fright or horror (p. 203). He hypothesized an inherently
erotic component of painful affect to help explain the genesis of sadomasochism, stating, If we
assume that a similar erotogenic effect attaches even to intensely painful feelings, especially
when the pain is toned down or kept at a distance by some accompanying condition, we should
here have one of the main roots of the masochistic-sadistic instinct (p. 204).
The interractional relationship of sadism and masochism. Freuds fascination with
sadism and masochism was due, in part to his belief in their distinction as two facets of a single
trait (1905, 1915, 1924). In his view, A sadist is always at the same time a masochist, although
the active or the passive aspect of the perversion may be the more strongly developed in him and
26
may represent his predominant sexual activity (1905, p. 159). In Instincts and their Vicissitudes
(1915), Freud described sadistic pleasure as an identification with masochistic gratification. He
conjectured that the sadist was actually a masochist who had in the past experienced pleasure or
sexual excitation through pain, and sought the same pleasure in a vicarious fashion by inflicting
pain upon and identifying with the suffering object. It was not clear in this scenario the extent to
which the sadists experience was contingent on the objects pleasure. However, Freud may have
implied that the suffering object experienced pleasure by definition since, as he asserted, We
have every reason to believe that sensations of pain, like other unpleasurable sensations, trench
upon sexual excitation and produce a pleasurable condition (1915, p. 128).
Freud also believed that the characteristics of either sadism or masochism must develop
first and then give rise to the opposite phenomenon (e.g., 1905, 1915, 1924). In his earlier
writings he declared sadism to be primary (1905, 1915, 1919). He later reversed the order and
revamped his theory in The Economic Problem of Masochism (1924) due to the apparent
contradiction between masochism and the pleasure principle.
In Instincts and their Vicissitudes (1915), Freud put forth two mechanisms, or
vicissitudes, by which the instinct of masochism could develop from sadism: it could reverse
into its opposite, or turn around on the subjects self (p. 126). He further postulated that these
two means of masochistic development converged into a single process, which he described as
follows:
(a) Sadism consists in the exercise of violence or power upon some other person as
object.
(b) This object is given up and replaced by the subjects self. With the turning round
upon the self the change from an active to a passive instinctual aim is also effected.
27
(c) An extraneous person is once more sought as object; this person, in consequence
of the alteration which has taken place in the instinctual aim, has to take over the role
of subject. (p. 127)
Here, as indicated by stage (c), masochism required not only the turning around of sadism on the
self, but also the selection of another person as the sadistic figure.
In A Child is Being Beaten (1919), Freud delved into the sadistic and masochistic
iterations of childrens beating fantasies, which reinforced the interdependence of sadism and
masochism. The primary analysis was done using the material of four girls (the only time Freud
focused on females), although he strained to incorporate data from boys as well (Maleson, 1984).
In these children, the beating fantasy evolved over a similar period of time (1919): It
appeared before age six, but soon became dormant until the children witnessed other kids being
beaten by teachers at school. At that point the fantasy was revived and the children became
interested in books in which kids were beaten for bad behavior. These stories became the
inspiration for constructing their own beating fantasies. None of the children had actually been
beaten at home. Freud believed the impetus for the fantasy was a combination of unknown
predispositional factors, together with the childs incestuous attachment to the father.
The beating fantasy occurred in three stages (1915). Freud identified the first and third
stages as conscious and sadistic, while the second stage he referred to as unconscious and
masochistic. The three phases are as follows:
1. Phase 1: My father is beating the child. In this phase, the person being beaten is not the
child, but is someone else whom child hates, perhaps a sibling. The beating signifies
humiliation and deprivation of love. It means, Myy father does not love that child, he
loves only me (p. 187). Freud thought it served to gratify the childs jealousy.
28
2. Phase 2: I am being beaten by my father (p. 185). In this phase, the beater is the same,
but the child being beaten is the subject child. According to Freud, phase 2 resulted from
the convergence of guilt and need to punish the self for the sadistic wish in phase one,
together with the forbidden sexual love for the father. It is the most significant phase, in
that it combines self-punishment with libidinal excitation, thus giving rise to the bond
between pain and pleasure which Freud pronounced the essence of masochism (p. 189).
Also, because it was repressed, Freud conjectured that it could remain unconscious yet
operational throughout the subjects life, causing characterological issues vis a vis
authority figures (p. 195).
3. Phase 3: My father is beating the child; he loves only me (p.185). In this phase, the
child is an onlooker and the beater is not the father, but an undetermined father figure,
such as a teacher. He is beating various children whom the child does not know. This
phase has a sadistic form, but produces masochistic gratification, in that the children are
all substitutes for the subject child (p. 191).
The Economic Problem of Masochism (1924) was Freuds most comprehensive account
of the phenomenon of masochism. Here he delineated three forms of masochism: (a) erotogenic,
(b) feminine, and (c) moral masochism (p. 161). Moral masochism, which Freud described as the
ubiquitous need for suffering, is beyond the scope of this study. The other two forms are
described below.
Freud characterized erotogenic masochism as pleasure in pain (1924, p. 161), and the
foundation of the other two types. He admitted of uncertainty regarding the genesis of erotogenic
masochism, but offered two possible explanations for its development. The first was an
extension of his premise in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), that the infant
29
experiences sexual excitation as a result of any stimulation that exceeds a certain sensory
threshold (1924, p. 163). By way of induction, and in accordance with this, [he determined that]
the excitation of pain and unpleasure would be bound to have the same result (1924, p. 163).
Freud (1924) ultimately rejected this theory as inadequate for its failure to explain
sadism. He proposed an alternative (but not exclusive) hypothesis by which his newly theorized
life instinct (or libido) and death instinct would undergo a process of fusion and
amalgamation (p. 164). Through this merger, the libido was said to tame the death instinct by
diverting its aim largely outward, resulting in sadism proper (also known as the destructive
instinct, the instinct for mastery, or the will to power) (p. 163).
However, Freud theorized that a portion of the fused instinct remained inside the
individual directing its aim at the self, thus constituting erotogenic original masochism (1924,
p. 164). The notion that masochism constituted unprojected residual sadism supported Freuds
conviction that the two phenomena were actually identical. Yet he postulated that in some
circumstances, the projected sadism could also be re-introjected and turned upon the self in the
regressive development of a secondary masochism, upon which he did not expound (Freud,
1924).
Freud described the second of the three types of masochism, feminine masochism, as
the most understood and least problematic form (1924, p. 161). It was limited to masochistic,
perverted men who fantasized about being gagged, bound, painfully beaten, whipped, in some
way maltreated, forced into unconditional obedience, dirtied and debased (p. 162). According to
Freud, such subjects wished to be treated like helpless, naughty children, which indicated a sense
of guilt for wrongdoing. He termed it feminine masochism because these men fantasized being
put in what he considered characteristically female situations, representing castration, passive
30
copulation, or childbirth. However, he noticed a regressive aspect to it as well, in that many of

these features point to infantile life (p. 162).
Psychiatric Perspectives as Reflected in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
Although a single, universally agreed upon definition of SM does not exist (e.g.,
Williams, 2006; Moser, 1999), SM activities generally comprise, but are not necessarily limited
to sexual sadism, sexual masochism and paraphillic interests (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000, 2013). Sexual sadism has been included in some form in every iteration of the
DSM (Krueger, 2009). In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association published its first
diagnostic manual (DSM-I) and included sexual sadism as a form of sociopathy (1952, pp. 3839). Sexual masochism was not included in the DSM as a separate disorder until the second
version in 1968 (American Psychiatric Association, p. 274).
The psychiatric definitions of sexual sadism and sexual masochism have evolved over
time. Until the recent advent of the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), these
concepts were circumscribed by the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000),
which included them among the paraphilias. Paraphilias were defined as recurrent, intense
sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and
cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning (p. 535).
Under the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), sexual masochism
was described as intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the
act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer,
occurring over a period of at least six months, and which cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (p. 574). It defined
31
sexual sadism in terms of the same fantasies, urges or acts in which the psychological suffering
(including humiliation) of the victim is sexually exciting, and in which the person has acted on
these sexual urges with a non-consenting person, or [they] cause marked distress or interpersonal
difficulty (p. 574).
The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) has been criticized as
pathologizing sexual sadism and masochism (e.g., Powls and Davies, 2012). However, it is
arguable that, based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria, neither sexual masochism nor sexual sadism
includes SM, as practiced by consenting adults who do not experience significant distress as a
result (Kleinplatz & Moser, 2007).
Unlike previous versions of the DSM, the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association,
2013), arguably depathologizes SM. First, it explicitly distinguishes between paraphilias,
defined as non-pathological sexual interests, and paraphilic disorders, which require distress or
impairment to the patient or another person. The DSM-5 defines paraphilia as, any intense and
persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital or preparatory fondling with
phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners (p. 685).
Second, the DSM-5 emphatically limits paraphilic disorders in several ways: It
characterizes paraphilia as a necessary but not a sufficient condition for disordered behavior or
clinical intervention (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 686). It excludes paraphilic
interests and behaviors that do not yield negative consequences. It also acknowledges that some
paraphilias are generally better described as preferential sexual interests, which include,
spanking, whipping, cutting, binding, or strangulating another person, or an interest in these
activities that equals or exceeds the individuals interest in copulation or equivalent interaction
with another person (p. 685). Finally, similar to Freuds early analysis (1905), the touchstone by
32
which the presence of a paraphilia is determined is the individuals level of interest in the activity
as compared to his or her interest in normative sex. This is in contrast to an external standard, or
one that is based on content alone (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Studies Evincing the Relative Mental Health of SM Practitioners
Demographic studies of SM practitioners generally reflect a group of people with healthy
functioning, as measured by education, income and occupation (Krueger, 2010; Sandnabba,
Santtila & Nordling, 1999; Sandnabba, Santtila, Alison, & Nordling, 2002). For example,
compared with the general Finnish population, the sample (n=164) of male sadomasochists
questioned by Sandnabba, et al. (1999) were more educated and earned significantly more
monthly incomes. As Baumeister (1988) commented after reviewing earlier studies revealing
comparable results, It appears that participating in sadomasochistic sex practices is compatible
with an otherwise normal, sane, and even successful life (p. 31). Similarly, upon a thorough
review of the extant literature, Powls and Davies (2012) recently concluded that SM
practitioners represent a non-deviant, well-adjusted, and well-functioning majority (p. 231).
Gosselin and colleagues (Gosselin, Wilson, & Barrett, 1991) compared the personalities
of 87 women who incorporated SM into their sexual lifestyles with 50 women who engaged only
in conventional sexual practices. Using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, women who
engaged in SM emerged as more extraverted, less neurotic, and lower on the Lie scale than
controls. They also scored higher in psychoticism, which the authors suggested did not reflect
pathology, but rather with aspects of SM that involve aggressive and impersonal behavior,
perhaps due to higher levels of testosterone.
In a study involving 19,307 Australian respondents aged 16-59, Richters, de Bisser,
Rissel, Grulich and Smith (2008) concluded that SM is simply a type of sexual interest or
33
subculture, and is not generally symptomatic of pathology or past abuse. The study was
conducted in 2001 and 2002, with the aim of discovering whether SM is practiced by individuals
with psychological or sexual problems. The large sample size was attributable to the authors
intention to procure a national sample of SM activity among the general population. Data was
collected through phone interviews using random-digit dialing.
In that study, Richters and colleagues (2008) tested the empirical validity of three
common assumptions surrounding SM. First, they tested the assumption that a taste for BDSM
is a result of the individual pursuing in later sexual life attributes of earlier scenes of sexual
abuse that are still experienced as arousing. Second, they tested the assumption that BDSM is a
form of psychological abnormality and that its practitioners are likely to be anxious and
maladjusted in other ways. Third, they tested the validity of the assumption that people who
are involved in BDSM are sexually deficient in some way and need particularly strong stimuli
such as beating or being beaten, being tied up, etc. to become aroused or to reach orgasm (p.
1661).
Contrary to these common assumptions, the authors (Richters, et al., 2008) found that
those who reported engaging in BDSM in the past year were, (a) not more likely than those that
did not report BDSM activity to have experienced sexual coercion, (b) not more likely to suffer
higher levels of psychological distress, and (c) not more likely to experience sexual difficulties.
Limitations of the study include a single self-reporting methodology and the fact that questions
applied only to the past year. It also did not measure SM frequency, identity
(dominant/submissive), or subjective importance of BDSM to the participants.
Research by Sandnabba and colleagues (2002) was consistent with the foregoing study.
According to their surveys, multiple studies supporting the mental health of SM practitioners
34
suggested that severe family pathology is likely to be absent in the large majority of cases.
However, other studies, many of which are limited to clinical samples (e.g. Blos, 1991), suggest
the opposite.
Over 95 percent of the participants (n=164) in a study of Finnish males reported engaging
in ordinary sex practices, as well as SM (Sandnabba, Santilla & Nordling, 1999). This number
was significant, in that it evinced the varied sexual interests of SM participants, as well as the
fact that SM was found to enhance practitioners sexual experience, but was not required for
sexual arousal. The authors also found that most participants viewed their SM behaviors
positively, endorsing feelings of happiness, safety and wanting to do it again following their first
experience. However, compared to the national average (19 percent), the sample contained more
than twice the number of single individuals (45.1 percent), indicating a possible difficulty for SM
practitioners in finding a partner.
According to Sandnabba, et al. (1999), a relative dearth of information exists regarding
SM practices of females. Particularly in quantitative research studies, the paucity of females
responding to mailed questionnaires may have resulted in a disproportionate amount of data
accumulated regarding males (Moser & Levit, 1987; Sandnabba, 2002; Sandnabba, et al., 1999).
SM as a Sociological Phenomenon
Beginning in the 1970s, social psychologists and sociologists began studying SM as a
cultural, rather than an individual phenomenon from a non-judgmental, non-pathologizing
perspective (e.g. Weinberg, 1979; Baumeister, 1988). They viewed SM as a meaning-making
experience that was culturally produced, learned, and reinforced by participation in the SM
subculture (Weinberg, 1979, p. 52). Much of this initial literature focused on the gay SM
community (Weinberg, 1979).
35
Baumeister (1988) was one of few researchers who pioneered the study of SM from a
social perspective (Sandnabba, et al., 2002). Focusing on masochism in particular, he theorized
that it can be viewed as a purposeful, healthy phenomenon used to escape the stress of high-level
self-awareness, and focus exclusively on lower levels of self-awareness and physical sensation.
In his view, Masochism is [essentially] an escape from identity to body (Baumeister, 1988, p.
42). Through small doses of non-injurious pain, one is forced to focus exclusively on the
physical self. Through bondage, one is deprived of initiative and responsibility. Through
humiliation, one is relieved of the burden of maintaining self-esteem and a social identity, and is
reduced to simply an object of sexual desire (Baumeister, 1988). Baumeister likens masochistic
sex practices to exercise, meditation, recreational substance use, and sky diving, positing that
those who pursue masochistic sexual activities seek the same intense stimulation and exquisite
sense of presence, but with a sexual tenor.
Taylor and Ussher (2001) conducted one of the early phenomenological studies of SM,
using a social constructionist-discursive analysis, with the goal of understanding how
sadomasochists defined themselves and conceptualized sexuality. The participants were recruited
from SM venues and organizations in London, Brighton and Amsterdam, and were composed of
24 males and females, between the ages of 22 and 65. They included heterosexual, bisexual and
gay individuals who were predominantly white, middle class professionals.
In that study, the authors sought to define SM from the perspective of those who engage
in the phenomenon and to extract themes through which SM could be better understood (Taylor
& Ussher, 2001). Their participants characterized SM as comprising four elements: (a)
consensuality, (b) power imbalance, (c) sexual arousal, and (d) mutuality of definition.
36
Consensuality clearly distinguished SM behaviors from violence for each of the

participants. Boundaries were negotiated between tops and bottoms and safe words were adopted
to ensure the well-being of the bottom. Moreover, consent was said to be highly valued in the
SM communities, which reportedly marginalized persons who did not respect these limits
(Taylor & Ussher, 2001).
Although a power imbalance was integral to all participants definitions of SM, the actual
distribution of power was less clear (Taylor & Ussher, 2001). Some attributed the power to the
top, while others to the bottom, because the bottom essentially exercises veto power over all
activities. Power was found to be exercised either physically or psychologically. Physical
manifestations of power consisted of inflicting pain through such means as slapping, hair pulling,
nipple manipulation, electric shocks, biting, and whipping. However, most participants noted the
importance of stimulating pain without causing harm, emphasizing the subjective experience of
pain rather than the infliction of bodily damage (p. 299).
Participants defined psychological power play in terms of role-playing practices
involving humiliation or dominance and submission (Taylor & Ussher, 2001). Roles included
master-slave, teacher-student, or parent-child. Bondage practices were often incorporated into
these scenes, using items such as rope, collars, blindfolds or gags in order to produce a sense of
helplessness. As one participant explained: I get turned on by the feeling of total helplessness . .
. youre at their mercy, its that feeling of vulnerability . . . the fear . . . it makes it so exciting (p.
300).
Sexual arousal constituted the third component of SM (Taylor & Ussher, 2001). In order
for an activity to constitute SM it had to be performed within a sexual context. However,
particularly in public SM play, the scenes were not required to be patently sexual, but only
37
sexually arousing to the individual players. Finally, the participants required mutuality of
meaning, in that the players themselves both defined their behaviors as SM, rather than
something else, such as massage or wrestling (Tayler & Ussher, 2001).
Taylor and Ussher (2001) also found that the role of SM in the lives of the participants
varied. The majority of female participants practiced SM predominantly or exclusively within
committed, and often monogamous relationships. However, others practiced SM alone, with one
or more partners, or with friends or groups. Noting the wide range of practices within SM, the
authors determined that SM is multifaceted, its expression takes a variety of forms along a
number of continuums, it is credited with differing degrees of importance and it is expressed
within widely different interpersonal contexts (p. 302).
A discourse analysis of Taylor and Usshers (2001) interviews revealed eight themes
through which participants constructed their SM experiences: dissidence, pleasure, escapism,
transcendence, learned behavior, intra-psychic, pathological and inexplicable. Dissidence
involved viewing SM as a retort against patriarchal hegemony by those women whose SM roles
included topping. In this way, SM was seen by these participants as a resolutely feministic
activity.
Fun was a descriptor that was expressed by all participants (Taylor & Ussher, 2001).
The objective of SM play was primarily to give and receive pleasure. Escapist fantasy was also a
theme for the vast majority of participants. Through SM they were able to transcend the
mundaneness of ordinary experience, as well as find relief from feelings of aloneness, drudgery
or boredom (p. 304). This theme bordered on the concept of SM as a therapeutic device,
providing a means of coping with stress.
38
Participants also described SM as a transcendental experience, leading to a heightened

state of consciousness or in some way making them more astute, more enlightened or more
alive (Taylor & Ussher, 2001, p. 305). Some participants spoke of SM as spiritual, ceremonial
and possibly addictive because of its unique physiological effects that participants described as
an adrenaline rush or an endorphine high, that carries you away (p. 306).
Another predominant theme that arose in Taylor and Usshers (2001) study was SM as an
intra-psychic phenomenon. Participants mentioned a relationship between current SM activities
and personality or childhood experiences . Examples included acting out a historically
subservient personality, or dominating men as retribution for an authoritarian father (Taylor &
Ussher, 2001).
The concept of SM as pathological was discussed by some participants in the context of
individuals who did not respect other peoples limitations of consent (Taylor & Ussher, 2001).
However, pathology was not discussed as an element of SM in itself. As one participant
explained, [o]f course a lot of SM-ers are messed up. Just like everyone else . . . I mean . . . why
should we have a monopoly on mental health[?] (p. 309).
Finally, Taylor and Ussher (2001) found that interviewees were more likely to describe
SM as inexplicable than pathological. Participants were unable to explain exactly what drew
them to SM activities. As one stated, We havent got the language to describe whats going on
(p. 310).
Kleinplatz and Menard (2007) conducted a phenomenological study of three groups: (a)
SM practitioners, (b) individuals over age 65 in long-term relationships, and (c) sex therapists (n
= 50), all of whom characterized their sex lives as great based on several shared criteria.
Common among these seemingly disparate groups was the belief that great sex is predicated on
39
six features: presence, authenticity, emotional connection, intimacy, communication, and

transcendence.
All three groups endorsed complete presence as the most prevalent characteristic of great
sex (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007). The experience of presence included being fully attuned,
letting go, and surrendering oneself to the moment. As the authors noted, Participants pointed
out almost universally that, whereas other kinds of sexual interaction may be physically
satisfying and emotionally fulfilling, this quality of being entirely alive in their bodies with no
mental interference was the hallmark of great sex (p. 74). For most of the participants, the
second most predominant theme, authenticity, was closely related to the first. It included
relentless self-honesty, uninhibited erotic desire, and raw emotional vulnerability. As one
participant stated, I am at my most powerful when Im at my most vulnerable that is when I
feel my greatest strength. I am completely stripped bare and if they can reach in and grab it and
play with it, I love it! (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007, p. 74).
Participants identified an intense emotional connection as an additional theme (Kleinplatz
& Menard, 2007). Although there was disagreement as to whether long-term intimacy was
required, all participants believed in the necessity of it during the sexual encounter itself. Most
associated this element directly with the overall quality of the sex. It was the empathic bond that
created a sense of one-ness for the participants: Living in a shared common experience,
enhanced by moment-by-moment awareness of how the partner is responding (Kleinplatz &
Menard, 2007, p. 74).
Intimacy was described as a deep sense of care and being cared for, and a mutual interest
in one another emotionally, bodily and sexually (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007). Kissing was
identified by many participants a touchstone of intimacy. Communication was also important,
40
and included not only openly sharing sexual needs and desires without judgment, but also the
prerequisite of knowing ones own erotic fantasies and the willingness to show and tell (p.
75).
Likening the last theme to what Maslow termed peak experiences (Maslow, 1971, as
cited in Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007, p. 75), the authors termed this element transcendence.
Participants described being awash in awe, ecstasy, peace, bliss, and the sublime (p.
76). Many of them relied on religious terminology for lack of language to adequately express this
heightened, often sacred, spiritual passage.
These findings, though limited, suggest that SM practitioners seek the same basic
experience of great sex as others, and that such experience is predicated on non-physical criteria
(Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007). The authors note that none of the participants found intercourse or
any other sexual technique relevant to their experience of great sex. These results imply that SM
practitioners share with their vanilla counterparts a common definition of great sex,
notwithstanding divergent means of attaining it. The authors did not divulge the number of
participants in each category, or review differences among them, which may weaken the
robustness of the results.
In the quest to define SM, most but not all authors attribute an erotic component to the
phenomenon (Townsend, 1983; Newmahr, 2011). Townsend (1983) and Newmahr (2011) take
exception to the inherent sexuality of SM. Townsend constructed the following non-clinical, sixprong definition of SM activity: (a) dominant/submissive relationship between the parties;
(b) pain inflicted by the dominant upon the submissive that is pleasurable to both; (c) use of
fantasy or role-play; (d) purposeful humiliation of the submissive, (e) fetishistic aspects, such as
clothing, toys, or props; and (f) one or more rituals, such as bondage or flagellation.
41
Newmahr (2011) defined SM as the collection of activities that involve the mutually
consensual and conscious use among two or more people of pain, power, perceptions about
power, or any combination thereof, for psychological, emotional or sensory pleasure (p. 18).
Her definition excludes sex because she found that a great number of scenes, in which people
engage in SM play, did not involve sex and were conducted by individuals who were not sex
partners. She found that the eroticism of SM was distinct from that of general sexual arousal, but
in ways that are not easily understood, even by participants. As one of her interviewees
explained:
When I play with somebody, casual play in the club, Im getting something out of it. Im
getting turned on, but its not from the standpoint - like, I know no sex is coming. Its not
that kind of thing. Its still something - dont have a word yet. Dont know what that
word would be. But its something, its a turn on, its exciting, its fulfilling - its
definitely fulfilling some need, whatever that need can be defined as. (p. 126)
The controversial nature of SM highlights the point made by many authors: That the
ever-evolving criteria used to evaluate mental health cannot be divested of its social context
(e.g., Horowitz & Wakefield, 2012; Kleinplatz & Moser, 2007). As Kleinplatz and Moser (2007)
explain, the last 100 years have seen myriad sexual activities fade in and out of style, with the
concomitant judgment of them as either normal or pathological. These include nymphomania,
satyriasis, masturbation, oral sex, homosexuality, hypersexuality, sexual addiction and the entire
category of unusual sexual interests known collectively as the paraphilias. . . . [which] includes
sexual sadism and sexual masochism (p. 56). Normal sexuality is a mercurial concept that
remains undefined by either theory or research (Kleinplatz & Moser, 2007). As such, many
authors find its inclusion in the DSM inappropriate (e.g., Kleinplatz & Moser, 2007; Langdridge
& Barker, 2007; Cross & Matheson, 2006).
42
Krueger (2010) acknowledged the healthy social and psychological functioning of SM

populations. However, he recommended retaining the diagnostic criteria for Sexual Masochism
in the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) to capture the few cases that result in
serious harm or death, and to promote research regarding this pathological end of the spectrum.
He recommended retaining the diagnostic criteria for Sexual Sadism in the DSM-5 to address the
prominence of sexual sadism in forensic populations, but not in the general community (Krueger,
2009).
Moser (1999) has gone so far as to characterize the attraction to SM as a sexual
orientation, comparable to homosexuality. Thus, in his (arguably radical) view, individuals who
wish to expunge their SM inclinations would experience what he likens to ego-dystonic
homosexuality, as described by the DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). As such,
he contended that efforts to uneroticize SM behavior are not likely to be successful, and also
raised the ethical issue of using psychotherapy to alter a persons sexual orientation.
Modern Psychodynamic Perspectives
Other authors, particularly of the psychodynamic persuasion have associated masochistic
activities in particular to past trauma (e.g., Novick & Novick, 1996). In their study of severely
disturbed patients, Novick and Novick (1996) found that the early mother-infant relationship of
masochistic individuals shared a general developmental path. This trajectory began with a
substantial disruption of the mother-infant pleasure economy (p. 52) that contributed to beating
fantasies fueled by a delusion of omnipotence. Essentially, they suggest that the radically
unattuned mother induces escalating anger and shame in her baby, causing intolerable pain, for
which the child, who is searching for a sense of control, assumes responsibility. That child,
deprived of a sense of self-efficacy, becomes anxiously attached to, emotionally enmeshed and
43
enraged with the mother. He or she may then adopt a pattern of using painful, humiliating
experiences to access a sense of attachment to the mother, as well as to temper the rage he or she
never learned to regulate, and to counteract feelings of intense helplessness.
In normal development, infancy is the period during which the child develops a sense of
efficacy by eliciting joy in the mother (Novick & Novick, 1996). An adequately attuned mother
attends to her childs emotional state, responds consistently in an empathic manner, and repairs
misattunements in a timely fashion. Novick and Novick (1996) found that mothers of
masochistic patients frustrated their need for empathy, competency, and self-efficacy by
rejecting bids for engagement, treating assertions as aggressions, externalizing feelings of failure,
worthlessness and blame onto the child, and failing to repair ruptures in empathic synchrony.
Through these actions, the mother deprived the infant of a sense of interpersonal effectiveness,
and induced a pervasive sense of helplessness that ultimately prevented the child from separating
and individuating.
Moreover, as a result of the frequent disappointment and hopelessness elicited by the
mother, the infant comes to psychically link the concept of mother (or desired object) with pain
(Novick & Novick, 1996). The authors explain that for these children,
their wide-eyed gaze was not met by a mothers adoring, joyful look but by a blank,
depressed deadness. Their mothers smiled only when they emerged from their depressed
or anxious state and felt like smiling, not in response to the childs smile. The only
constant in their unpredictable lives was the experience of the range of dysphoric feelings
and so . . . these patients came to associate their mothers with pain. (p. 53)
Consequently, these children develop an early, unique relationship to pain, which becomes a
means of psychically accessing the desired object: Pain-seeking behavior represents an attempt
to substitute for the withdrawal of cathexis by the mother. . . . The need for the object overrides
the need for pleasure (p. 20). Pain-seeking activity in such children may commence as early as
44
infancy, when some children with severely depressed mothers have been found to inflict pain on
themselves through actions such as hair pulling.
Novick and Novick (1996) opine that this early correlation between the desired object
and the experience of pain constitutes the primary fault (Balint, 1968, as cited in Novick &
Novick, 1996, p. 22) for the development of fixed masochistic structures. According to the
authors, infants who endure this form of distress tend to forge an early, indelible relationship
with pain a learned association between mother and unpleasure (p. 25)that progresses
through developmental stages, and evolves into a masochistic relationship to the world.
Omnipotence. Novick and Novick (1996) found that all of their masochistic patients
presented with pervasive delusions of omnipotence through which they believed (consciously or
unconsciously) that their omnipotent impulses could only be controlled through severe
masochistic acts (p. 52). The delusion of omnipotence originates in infancy, when the mothers
consistent lack of empathy generates a cascade of helplessness and rage. These feelings are met
with anger and shame by the mother, which leads the child to believe he or she is omnipotently
responsible for the mothers anger and sense of inadequacy.
In addition, Novick and Novick (1996) found that throughout development, mothers of
masochistic children intensified their childs anxiety and rage, which contributed to the childs
omnipotent delusion. The mothers of masochists were unable to regulate, contain, and facilitate
integration of their childs anxieties and aggressive impulses. Instead, through physical
intrusiveness (i.e., enemas, bodily examinations), restriction of exploration or lack of tolerance
for appropriate demonstrations of autonomy, they discouraged independence and amplified their
childs aggression.
45
This intensification, coupled with the childs failure to individuate from mother, due to
her (often unconscious) efforts to inhibit the childs autonomy contributes to the childs delusion
that an assault upon oneself constitutes an attack on the mother. As the authors explained, [t]he
intensity of the rage generated in both mother and child was a constant affirmation of
omnipotence, and, since mother was felt to own the childs mind and body, attacks on the self
became a powerful weapon for attacking mother (Novick & Novick, 1996, p. 54).
Beating fantasies. According to Novick and Novick (1996), during the post-oedipal
period, masochistic impulses that commenced in infancy become conscious or unconscious fixed
beating fantasies. These fantasies tend to evolve into a general view of self as a victim of others,
with the continued underlying purpose of achieving union with the desired object. As the authors
describe, [i]n the fantasies the subject is the innocent victim, who achieves through suffering
reunion with the object, defense against aggressive destruction and loss of the object, avoidance
of narcissistic pain, and instinctual gratification by fantasy participation in the oedipal situation
(p. 47). Unlike Freud (1919), who associated the beating fantasy with the father, Novick and
Novick (1996) determined that the impetus for the fantasy originated in relation to the mother.
During adolescence, all of the patients studied by Novick and Novick (1996) failed to
sublimate infantile wishes and develop a sense of self apart from the mother-child relationship
(p. 57). In order to confirm their omnipotence in the face of reality, they often turned to
escalating self-destructive behaviors to generate a parental response. As adults, these patients
tended to view their lives in masochistic termsas having been victims in generalhaving been
bullied or teasing at school, and mistreated elsewhere. They also commonly developed ritualistic,
obsessional behaviors as a means of containing their aggression.
46
Similar to Novick and Novick (1996), Warren (1997) views sadomasochism as a

symptom of early ambient trauma. From his contemporary relational psychoanalytic perspective,
masochism is a problem stemming from the origins of subjectivity (Warren, 1997, p. 111).
Looking primarily to Winnicott (1945, 1949, 1960) and Ghent (1990), he theorizes that the
dynamics underlying submission and domination stem from impingement, a term originated by
Winnicott, meaning a premature stripping away of ones primary omnipotence resulting from a
failure of maternal provision and care (Warren, 1997, p. 109). Impingement occurs when gaps
in the maternal holding environment expose the infant to intolerable levels of external and
internal stimulation, which interfere with the infants sense of omnipotence, and compromise
healthy development. The result is an incapacity to fully experience the self as separate and
distinct from the mother or the object. The individuals sense of existence becomes conflated
with fusion to another because, to be separate is to be utterly alone (p. 109).
In Warrens (1997) view, this failure to develop psychic independence may lead to a
sadomasochistic style of relating to others in two ways: First, submission may serve as a
superficial substitute for what Ghent (1990) termed surrender. Second, it may be used as a
surrogate for deeply desired human contact that requires a level of vulnerability too threatening
for the traumatized individual.
Ghent (1990) explores in considerable length the concept of surrender, but posits that it is
fundamentally the yielding of Winnicotts false self (p. 2). The desire for surrender reflects
a longing for the birth, or perhaps the re-birth, of true self (p. 2). Thus, Ghent suggests, the
desire for surrender is innately human, but morphs into a wish to be wounded and over-taken as a
result of impingement. Ghent explains, Extreme submissiveness is the perversion of the desire
to be seen and known, an inauthentic short-circuiting of the full experience arising from
47
[Winnicotts notion of ] basic mistrust (p. 110). In short, submission reflects the misguided
attempt to find the self (Warren, 1997).
Through painstaking deliberation, Ghent (1990) attempts to distinguish between
surrender and submission. In his view, surrender represents the ultimate in authenticity,
transcendence, and growth, while submission equals atrophy and self-negation. It is a process of
losing oneself in the power of the other, becoming enslaved in one or other way to [another as]
the master (p. 5). Unlike surrender, submission is defensive in nature, in that it either operates
in the service of resistance, or is at best adaptive as an expedient (p. 110).
Notably, Ghent (1990) characterizes submission as masochistic, but does not specifically
define masochism. Rather, he refers to masochism as all that is customarily intended by the
term including both its sexual and characterological meanings (p. 108), and in a somewhat
circular fashion, as the the seeking out of submission, pain or adversity (p. 108). Examples of
submission include, being forced, tricked, seduced into lovemaking, or being overpowered by
the sheer masterfulness of the other (p. 119). However, they also include non-sexual pursuits,
such as high-risk, death-defying activities. According to Ghent, the intensity and excitement of
these quasi-masochistic configurations (p. 119) can be mistaken for the experience of
surrender.
Ghent (1990) describes surrender as a complex of meanings that convey a quality of
liberation and expansion of the self as a corollary to the letting down of defensive barriers (p.
108). He seems to liken surrender to a higher level of consciousness, achieved through exquisite
creativity or spirituality, in which the self is lost to something greater. He suggests the closest
most people come to surrender is through orgasm with a loved one. In his efforts to formulate a
48
definition of surrender, Ghent enumerates features of the phenomenon, as compared to

submission. Characteristics of surrender include:
1. It does not necessarily require another persons presence, except possibly as a guide.
One may surrender in the presence of another, not to another as in the case of
submission.
2. Surrender is not a voluntary activity. One cannot choose to surrender, though one can
choose to submit. One can provide facilitative conditions for surrender but cannot
make it happen.
3. It may be accompanied by a feeling of dread and death, and/or clarity, relief, even
ecstasy.
4. It is an experience of being in the moment, totally in the present, where past and
future, the two tenses that require mind in the sense of secondary processes, have
receded from consciousness.
5. Its ultimate direction is the discovery of ones identity, ones sense of self, ones sense
of wholeness, even ones sense of unity with other living beings. This is quite unlike
submission in which the reverse happens: one feels ones self as a puppet in the power
of another; ones sense of identity atrophies.
6. In surrender there is an absence of domination and control; the reverse is true in the
case of submission. (pp. 110-111)
Warren (1997) proposes a second explanation for masochistic behavior: The individual
who experienced early impingement is contemporaneously aware of the desperation with which
he or she yearns to be consumed by an intimacy only a mother can provide, and the reality of its
unavailability. In order to cope with this insufferable and unrequited longing, he or she disavows
it through fantasies of arrant self-sufficiency and/or total submission, in which need and desire
are cut off from experience. As Warren explains,
The interplay between innocence and experience is shut down: the masochists distrust of
dependency leaves him trapped either in a loveless and despairing shell of cynicism or in
the inverse state of absolute vulnerability and submissiveness which cries out for absolute
rescue and ultimately, domination. (p. 113)
49
Holmes (2013) suggests that a SM relationship could be viewed as a response to an

insecure attachment. In the context of an insecure attachment, extreme infantile helplessness can
metastasize into an insatiable quest for power rather than a healthy sense of empowerment, thus
giving rise to the need to dominate. In Holmess view, underlying the quest for dominance is the
belief that never again will I feel powerless if I become master and enslave others as containers
for my projected helplessness (p. 69). In addition, Holmes identifies the sense of safety that a
sadomasochistic relationship might afford both parties: There is a degree of security in
sadomasochism: if someone wants to hurt you, at least they want you; if you have the power to
hurt another you ensure that you are not quite so alone in the world (p.70). However, Holmes
does not distinguish between consensual and abusive sadomasochistic relationships. Other
authors who analyze dominance and submission from an attachment perspective also do not
make this distinction, such as Rathbone (2001), who declared When a love-relationship is not
loving, it is usually sadomasochistic (p. v).
However, not every psychodynamic theorist has pathologized the entire spectrum of
sadomasochistic behaviors. For instance, Kernberg (1991) pointed out healthy aspects of sexual
sadomasochism. He theorized that couples who consciously enacted various forms of sexual
aggression emanating from infancy may experience a resultant increase in intimacy. He further
suggested that the fact that society ostensibly proscribes sadomasochistic activity may add a
heightened sense of excitement to a couples sexual relationship. As he explained,
If the couple can incorporate their polymorphous perverse fantasies and wishes into their
sexual relationship, discover and uncover the sadomasochistic core of sexual excitement
in their intimacy, their defiance of conventional cultural mores may become a conscious
element of their pleasure. . . . The joint stripping away of the sexual taboos of childhood
may cement the couples emotional, cultural and social life as well. (p. 48)
50
Cognitive Research
Cognitive research shows that the ideas expressed in SM scenes and relationships
frequently cross peoples minds (e.g., Renaud & Byers, 1999; Byers, Purdon & Clark, 1998;
Knafo & Jaffe, 1984). These sexual thoughts can be experienced as exclusively positive or as
intrusive, unwanted, negative, and ego-dystonic (Byers et al., 1998, p. 360). Byers et al. found
that 84 percent of college students (n=171) reported experiencing at least one of 20 listed
sexually intrusive thoughts. Five percent of respondents endorsed experiencing all 20. The list
included several behaviors that are common in SM play, including sex involving exhibitionism,
humiliation, force, victimization, authority figures, minors, and animals or inanimate objects.
In perhaps an ironic twist, the authors (Byers et al., 1998) found that the frequency of
sexually intrusive cognitions correlated with a positive sexual disposition. In other words, the
more amenable a person was to sexuality, the more likely he or she was to report sexual intrusive
thoughts (p. 367). The reasons for this finding are unknown (Byers et al., 1998). However,
according to the authors, it could mean that erotophilic individuals who have a positive view of
sexuality and higher sexual arousal equated sexually intrusive thoughts to other sexual fantasies
and ideas, and thus, did not appraise them as threatening. In contrast, erotophobic individuals
who have a negative view of sexuality and lower sexual arousal experienced fewer sexual
intrusions but responded with greater anxiety to them. Since individuals who practice SM are
erotophilic by definition due to the intensity and regularity of their sexual encounters, this
population could be a valuable resource in uncovering the meaning and effects of various sexual
cognitions.
While it is evident that SM thoughts are experienced frequently, the manner in which
they are experienced is not understood (Renaud & Byers, 1999). Renaud and Byers studied
51
positive and negative sexual cognitions in heterosexual Canadian university students, ages 17 to
45 (n=292). Positive sexual cognitions were, experienced as acceptable, pleasant and egosyntonic (characteristic of ones personality) (p. 20). Negative sexual cognitions were
experienced as unacceptable, unpleasant and ego-dystonic (uncharacteristic of ones
personality) (p. 20). Content choices included both conventional and SM sexual activities, such
as being whipped or spanked, being hurt by or hurting a partner, being victimized sexually, tying
someone up, being tied up, and forcing or being forced by another adult to engage in a sexual
act.
Results of the study reflected ambivalence in the appraisal of such thoughts as positive or
negative: 72.2 percent of men and 41.7 percent of women experienced the thought of being tied
up as positive, while 58.8 percent of men and 35.8 percent of women reported experiencing such
thoughts as negative (at least some of the time) (Renaud & Byers, 1999). Forty-one percent of
men and 29.7 percent of women reported such thoughts as sometimes positive and at other times
negative. Similarly, 52.1 percent of men and 33.1 percent of women characterized the thought of
being forced to do something sexually as positive on at least one occasion and negative on at
least one other. Moreover, each of the 56 sexual cognitions had been experienced as both
positive (at least once) and negative (at least once) by at least 4.1 percent of the sample,
indicating that none of the listed sexual cognitions was exclusively positive or exclusively
negative for all individuals (p. 23). Thus, in this study content alone was insufficient for
determining the quality of sexual cognitions.
Interpersonal Behavior Perspectives
To the extent there is confusion in the literature surrounding SM, it could be due in part
to a confounding of the terms power, dominance, and domineeringness. Dyadic Power
52
Theory (DPT, Rollins & Bahr, 1976; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2000, 2004, as cited in Dunbar &
Burgoon, 2005) delineates significant differences among these terms. Pursuant to DPT, power is
inherent in all relationships, particularly those that are intimate, because it governs the way
partners relate to one another and make decisions (p. 209). According to Bachrach & Lawler,
(1981, as cited in Dunbar and Burgoon, 2005), scholars generally agree that power is the
capacity to produce intended effects, and in particular, the ability to influence the behavior of
another person (p. 209). It is only an ability, and is not always recognized, exerted, or
successfully employed. In this way it is considered latent. DPT assumes that the legitimate
authority to make decisions and to access various resources increases a persons perception of his
or own power in a relationship (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005).
In contrast to power, dominance has been referred to as manifest patterns of behavior in
which a persons assertion of control is met by acquiescence from another (Rogers-Millar &
Millar, 1979, as cited in Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005). Thus, dominance can be thought of as a
dynamic in which one partners claim is accepted by the other (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005). In a
relationship, dominance cannot be exerted without the assent of a submissive partner. On the
other hand, domineeringness is considered an individuals unilateral effort to control another,
notwithstanding his or her agreement (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005).
Dunbar and Burgoon (2005) studied the relationship between power and dominance
using DPT. DPT assumes a direct relationship between the perception of power and attempts to
exert dominance. The authors hypothesized that the relationship between the perception of power
and attempts to control dominance would be curvilinear, such that individuals who perceived
themselves as having considerably more or less power than their partner would make fewer
53
control attempts to exert dominance than partners who perceive a more comparable power
differential.
The authors (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005) studied heterosexual married or cohabitating
couples (n = 194) using videotaped dyadic interaction scenes which were coded for multiple
variables, as well as self-report measures to record the participants subjective experience of
power in their relationship. In contrast to the authors hypothesis, the relationship between power
and dominance was not consistently curvilinear. However, the findings showed a relationship
between power and dominance in egalitarian relationships. In particular, couples with equal
power tended to match one anothers attempts to dominate. The authors explained this finding as
follows: When power is relatively equal, it is not the zero-sum proposition that it is sometimes
claimed to be. . . . Rather, when individuals perceive relative equality in power they are inclined
to match their partners level of control attempts (p. 227).
In a similar vein, studies using the structural analysis of social behavior model
(Benjamin, 1974) have reflected the complementarity, rather than the opposition, of dominance
and submission in dyadic relationships. In studies of parenting behaviors employing renditions of
the social behavior model, it was found that interdependence between parents and children was
not accurately represented by opposing poles of dominance and submission (Benjamin, 1996).
Rather, as Benjamin described, dominance was more accurately opposed by emancipation (citing
independent validation of this determination by Lorr, 1991), while submission was more
correctly opposed by the concept of separation. As Benjamin explained, in these studies,
Dominance and submission are placed at comparable locations on different surfaces to reflect
the fact that they are complementary, not opposing positions (p. 1204).
54
Criticisms of the Extant Literature

Richters et al. (2008) noted that the medical and psychological literature tends to view
SM through either a psychoanalytic or forensic lens, both of which invoke inaccurate
presumptions. The psychoanalytic approach confounds the concept of the sadistic or masochistic
personality with sexual proclivities, while the forensic approach limits its data to criminal sexual
offenders. Similarly, other authors have lambasted the literature for its propensity to vilify SM
through psychiatric discourse, or by casual reference to it in connection with murder and other
heinous crimes (Taylor & Ussher, 2007; Krueger, 2010).
Moser (1999) admonished that most extant theories regarding the etiology of SM are
extrapolation[s] of concepts relating to other sexual variances, often developed without the
benefit of contact with actual S/M practitioners (para. 6). Moreover, they lack validation by
reference to any clinical samples (Moser, 1999). Moser presents a fairly extensive, yet
incomplete list of theorists who have contributed such un-validated hypotheses to the corpus of
SM literature.
Studies that have pathologized the SM phenomenon have also been criticized for reliance
on small clinical populations composed of individuals who have sought mental health assistance
for conflicts related to their sexuality (Taylor & Ussher, 2001). These studies have also been said
to suffer from the myopathy that results from attempting to reduce SM to a discrete, intrapsychic condition with a distinct constellation of symptoms (Taylor & Ussher, 2001). Even
many studies that are sympathetic to the SM lifestyle have been faulted for relying on superficial
quantitative data obtained exclusively from self-report measures (Taylor & Ussher, 2001).
55
Perhaps the systematic pathologizing of SM is related to societys arguable fascination

with sexual violence. The combination of violence and sex seems to maintain a particularly
frightening, yet voyeuristic grip on the human psyche (Newmahr, 2011). As Newmahr explains,
[t]he implication is that violence on its own is terrible enough, but when it meets the
realm of the erotic, it is especially disturbing. The spoken prelude to each episode of the
long-running crime drama Law and Order: SVU captures this perspective: In the
criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous (p.
142).
Original episodes of Law and Order: SVU were broadcast on primetime television for 13
seasons, thus reflecting a consistent public demand for stimulation of a violent sexual nature.
Summary
This chapter reviewed much of the relevant literature regarding SM. First, it discussed the
history of the phenomenon, and of the terms sadism and masochism. It went on to address
various characterizations of SM behaviors within the literature, including SM as pathological,
healthy, social, and sexual, with an emphasis on the possibility of SM as a salubrious expression
of self that has been the object of socio-cultural judgment inherent in the diagnosis of mental
disorders (e.g., Kleinplatz & Moser; Langdridge & Barker, 2007; Cross & Matheson, 2006). It
also considered SM, particularly masochism, as a possible response to early ambient trauma.
Finally, it addressed cognitive and interpersonal behavior research that are relevant to
sadomasochistic thoughts and behaviors. The next chapter addresses the research method and
procedures used in this study.
56
Chapter III
Methods and Procedures
This chapter discusses the methods and procedures used to prepare for and execute the
research project. First, it defines the narrative research model. Next, it explains the methods and
procedures selected by the author for the preparation of data collection, process of data
collection, and the organization and analysis of the data gathered. Finally, the chapter addresses
standards of evaluation in narrative research and discusses the criterion used by the author.
Narrative Research Model
The narrative research model ostensibly emerged in 1990, when two Canadian
researchers, Connelly and Clandinin used the personal stories of teachers to investigate teacher
education (Webster & Mertova, 2007). They opined that knowledge of education is generated by
stories people tell one another about their educational experiences. Since that time, narrative
inquiry has gained proponents around the world (Webster & Mertova, 2007).
The narrative research tradition is grounded in a post-modern epistemology, under which
knowledge is considered constructed largely by experience and culture (Webster & Mertova,
2007). There is no objective truth in narrative research. Rather than seek objective certitude,
this method of inquiry aims for its findings to be well-grounded and supportable, retaining
an emphasis on the linguistic reality of human experience. . . . [it] aims for verisimilitudethat
the results have the appearance of truth of reality (p. 4).
Narrative research is not a single formulation or task. Rather, it encompasses an array of
methods (Riessman, 2008; Creswell, 2007). It can be generally defined as a specific type of
qualitative design in which narrative is understood as a spoken or written text giving an account
of an event/action or series of events/actions, chronologically connected (Czarniawska, 2004,
57
p. 17, as cited in Creswell, 2007, p. 54). Textual data available to the researcher is unlimited; it
can include journal entries, letters, photographs, and other personal-family-social artifacts
(Creswell, 2007, p. 57). Any artifact used to communicate meaning is pertinent to this research
modality. The narrative approach is best suited for encapsulating comprehensive life experiences
of a small number of individuals, and can be either biographical or autobiographical (Creswell,
2007).
Thematic Analysis
Two narrative methods discussed in the literature were used to analyze the data in this
study: Thematic analysis (Riessman, 2008) and the critical events approach (Webster &
Mertova, 2007). Thematic analysis focuses exclusively on content: The investigator analyzes the
data by organizing it into themes. Little attention is given to the manner of communication, local
context or other details regarding how the data was communicated (Reissman, 2008).
There is flexibility in the process of thematic analysis, with different investigators
applying techniques of their choosing (Reissman, 2008). In one method, the researcher first
processes each interview individually, identifying and sequencing relevant events
chronologically. Next, the researcher identifies underlying assumptions within each interview.
Finally, he or she selects specific cases that exemplify general patterns and shared underlying
assumptions within the data.
Thematic analysis may also incorporate discursive techniques by which the researcher
takes note of striking words and phrases, paradoxes and contradictions (Reissman, 2008). These
findings can be used to generate larger concepts which stimulate additional investigation.
Reissman describes a particular investigators thematic analysis that incorporates both discursive
techniques and published literature to lend depth and significance to the research:
58
She begins by educating herself about contexts: her subjects lives and times
(biographical reading), and theoretical work that bears on the study issue. . . . The
investigator tacks back and forth between primary data and the scholarship of others,
checking what she is seeing in the self-writings . . . against concepts others have
elaborated. . . . The investigator is sensitive to seemingly unimportant issues in the
materials, topics that the [participants] themselves might take for granted. Submerged
aspects of the [participants], thus, can come to life. (pp. 66-67)
Critical Events Approach
The critical events approach to narrative analysis involves identifying and focusing on
critical events within peoples stories (Webster & Mertova, 2007). In this model, key events are
considered the primary mechanism by which people comprehend and transmit information about
their lives (Webster & Mertova, 2007). According to Webster and Mertova, critical events
analysis can be a useful addition to other qualitative methods. It provides a mechanism to
classify large amounts of data, and helps prevent pivotal occurrences from losing their
significance within the chronology.
An event is considered critical to the extent it has impacted the storytellers worldview
(Webster & Mertova, 2007). A critical event changes the person in some way. Generally, a
critical event can only be identified retrospectively, because the mind requires time to digest the
information and determine its impact (Webster & Mertova, 2007). However, it can occur during
an event, or at any time following an event. Its occurrence is the time of impact on the
individual: When the person comes to view him or herself or the world differently. A critical
event can even occur during the research interview, in a manner similar to therapy:
This change experience can come about as a storyteller encounters some difficulty in
integrating their idealised worldview with the reality of their experience. This conflict of
belief and experience promotes the development of a critical event as the storyteller
struggles to accommodate a change to their worldview. (Fay, 2000, as cited in Webster &
Mertova, 2007, p. 75)
Both the thematic and critical events methodologies proved useful in the researchers inquiry
59
into the nature of long-term heterosexual romantic partnerships that embrace SM practices.
Incorporating thematic and discursive techniques, critical events analysis and extant literature
permitted the investigator to achieve a broad-based subjective understanding of SM in long-term
heterosexual relationships.
Methods and Procedures Used in Preparation for the Collection of Data
The goal of this study was to discover how couples who are involved in monogamous
heterosexual relationships that regularly incorporate SM conceptualize and experience their
relationship. Eight couples were recruited to participate. Solicitation of participants was
accomplished through word of mouth, a flyer posted at amenable retail locations and social
internet sites that cater to the SM lifestyle. In order to participate in the study, each couple was
required to satisfy the following criteria:
- Each member of the couple was at least 21 years of age
- The couple has been in a monogamous relationship with one another for at least one
continuous year
- The couple characterized that relationship, as well as their own personal sexuality, as
regularly incorporating SM
- The couple engaged in some form of SM with one another (whether physical,
psychological or symbolic) on a regular basis
- Each member of the couple considered the relationship gratifying
- Each member of the couple was able to articulate his or her experience of being in an
SM relationship
- Each member of the couple was willing to be jointly interviewed for one to two hours,
and agreed to be available for clarification or discussion at a later date, if necessary
60
- Each member of the couple signed an informed consent, as described below.

Included in the Appendices are the following: Appendix A contains definitions of
common terms within the SM lexicon; Appendix B sets forth the letter of recruitment, which was
sent by way of email to potential participants; Appendix C consists of sample guiding interview
questions; Appendix D contains the form of informed consent and participation release
agreement; and Appendix E provides a list of themes, critical events and prominent discursive
elements organized by couple.
Methods and Procedures Used in the Collection of Data
Once the researcher recruited potential participants, she explored the criteria questions
through open-ended queries during the initial face-to-face or telephone contact. Upon confirming
qualification, the researcher obtained the email address of the potential participants and either
forwarded the letter of invitation to them for their further consideration, or in some cases where
the couple exhibited a high level of comfort and enthusiasm, the researcher explained the topic
and the interview process to the couple in person or over the phone.
Prior to commencing the interviews, the researcher furnished each interviewee a form of
informed consent for his or her review. Each interviewee was invited to ask any questions or
raise any concerns regarding the interview process and the research project. Once the participants
expressed satisfaction with the informed consent, they were asked to sign and return it to the
researcher. The interviews were conducted in a private study at a local library, the couples home
or other mutually convenient location.
Interview Format
Duncombe and Marsden (1996) emphasize the benefit of acquiring a single account of
the relationship during a joint interview. In their view, a conjointly constructed narrative is likely
61
to constitute the most accurate view of the relationship, so long as both partners seek to provide
truthful, candid information. In that connection, Allan (1980) points out that joint interviews
permit the partners to assist one another in recalling events, which can lead to a more accurate
description of experiences.
Joint interviews also inform the researcher of how couples co-construct their relationship
(e.g., Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013). Heaphy and Einarsdottir interviewed couples together and
individually, and found with respect to joint interviews that focusing on the [couples]
interactions . . . provided opportunities for extending [the researchers] understanding of the
dynamics (social, interpersonal and power) that shape the scripting and doing of relationships in
practice (p. 54). In that regard, the authors note that joint interviews quickly expose the power
dynamics of a relationship (Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013). They noticed almost immediately the
extent to which jointly interviewed partners negotiated the couples narrative and how authority
was asserted or delegated.
A potential disadvantage associated with joint interviews is their susceptibility to
dominance by one partner (Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013). However, Heaphy and Einarsdottir
emphasize that joint interviews are particularly useful for exploring such domination in its own
right (p. 62). Additional potential constraints of joint interviews include the partners influence
on one another and the proclivity to censor information. Heaphy and Einarsdottir opined that
private stories about relationships are not simply recounted in interviews but are constructed
and performed for different audiences (p. 60). In joint interviews, the audience includes not
only the interviewer, but also the other partner. Hence, interviewees are likely to censor
(consciously or unconsciously) their narratives in some way in response to their partners
presence.
62
Importantly, individual accounts may be devoid of the same sensitive information that
might be excluded from a joint interview (Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013). In separate interviews,
participants may be cautious about violating their partners trust. They also may not feel
comfortable revealing relationship secrets to a stranger, particularly without the consent of the
other partner (Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013).
Moreover, when interviewed separately, some partners may attempt to describe their
relationship in terms consistent with their partners portrayal (Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013).
This phenomenon has been explained as a conscious or unconscious tactic used to validate the
salience of the relationship. It could also reflect an effort to project an image of dyadic harmony
(Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013).
In order to encourage participation in qualitative studies of couples, Heaphy and
Einarsdottir (2013) explained that researchers often allow the participants to determine how they
wish to be interviewed. They refer to a study by Morris (2001) in which couples who were given
this choice elected not to be interviewed separately. Heaphy and Einarsdottir (2013) suggest that
joint interviews may be perceived as less threatening because they do not provide an opportunity
for the clandestine disclosure of sensitive information or of relationship secrets.
For purposes of this study, the researcher selected the joint interview model for two
primary reasons: First, in a study of this kind, in which significant emphasis is placed on dyadic
dominance and submission, the in vivo interaction between partners during the interview was
presumed to be a valuable source of data regarding the nature of the relationship. Second, the
subject matter of the research is particularly sensitive. Thus, separate interviews may arouse
disclosure inhibition regarding partnership secrets or promote a level of discomfort that may
deter frank disclosure or even participation in the study (Heaphy & Einarsdottir, 2013).
63
During the interview process, each participating couple was interviewed and audiotaped
for one to two hours. The interviews were semi-structured and flexible to accommodate the
personalities of the various participants. Questions were designed to be broad-based and openended with a view toward inspiring an uninhibited, relaxed dialogue with the researcher so as to
permit ideas, thoughts, feelings and images to unfold and be expressed naturally (Moustakas,
1990, p. 46). Bearing in mind the relevance of the manner in which stories are told (e.g., Heaphy
& Einarsdottir, 2013), the researcher permitted the couple to negotiate and co-construct the
narratives with as little intervention as possible. Thus, although the researcher ordered the
guiding questions in a manner that seemed to foster a flow of information from one topic to the
next, each couple interpreted the questions in their own way, often free-associating individually
and together as they built on each others ideas. Thus, once the interviews commenced, the
structure of the guiding questions was often abandoned in favor of listening for relevant data
points within the larger context of the participants stories.
In addition to collecting detailed stories of peoples lives through extensive interviews,
data collection in narrative research may also involve studying any artifacts that participants are
interested in sharing (Creswell, 2007, p. 56). Artifacts include journal entries, photographs, and
memorabilia that trigger meaningful memories for the participant. Interviewees were invited to
share any artifacts they considered significant in bringing their story to life, and to discuss their
meaning. However, with the exception of the few interviews that were conducted in the
participants homes, items were generally limited to pieces of jewelry.
Following the interview, the researcher debriefed the participants pursuant to the
debriefing questions set forth in Appendix C. The purpose of the debriefing was to gain an
understanding of the participants experience of being interviewed, and to ensure that they felt
64
reasonably comfortable with the process. A follow-up interview was offered to address any
lingering concerns or if the participants desired to share additional information.
Methods and Procedures Used in the Organization and Analysis of Data
After interviewing each couple, the researcher personally transcribed the audio portion of
the data. All audiotaped interviews were saved and password protected on the researchers
computer. Transcripts were retained in a locked cabinet in the researchers home to be shredded
after five years of the completion of the dissertation.
In terms of data organization and analysis, the researcher engaged in the following
general process: First, she drafted a chronological version of any portion of the couples
narrative that was conducive to tracing the evolution of their SM journey. Second, she analyzed
the data for themes that emerged in the couples stories (Riessman, 2008). Third, she reviewed
the description of any artifacts provided by the interviewees, placing them thematically, and
where appropriate, chronologically within the analysis. Some artifacts were discussed in the
interview, while others, such as collars, necklaces, cuffs, or bracelets were simply noted by the
researcher.
Next, the author searched for critical events in each narrative (Webster & Mertova,
2007). Critical events analysis is subjective, in that the researcher is charged with identifying
such events in the life of a participant based on the participants narrative (Webster & Mertova,
2007). In this study, critical events could be considered particularly relevant. They may include,
for example, the participants discovery of their attraction to SM, their first experiment with it
individually or as a couple, or moments of exquisite personal or spiritual growth during their SM
practice. Mindful of the fact that such events may occur during the interview itself, the
researcher endeavored to remain open to the verbal and non-verbal communication of the
65
participants, and also examined the transcripts for any indication that a participant may have
experienced a shift in worldview, view of self, or view of the relationship during the
conversation (Webster & Mertova, 2007).
Finally, the researcher perused the transcripts for discursive elements suggestive of latent
leitmotifs. In doing so, she noted any striking words or phrases used by the participants and any
paradoxes or contradictions within the data (Riessman, 2008). In some instances, these
discoveries, together with the thematic and critical events analysis inspired additional
investigation. In that event, the researcher referred to extant autobiographical literature for
assistance in identifying significant, yet more submerged, aspects of the participants experience.
Standards of Evaluation
Much debate surrounds the appropriate standards for evaluating qualitative research (e.g.,
Reissman, 2008; Creswell, 2007; Whittemore, Chase & Mandle, 2001). Various linguistic
interpretations of quantitative research terminology have been proposed (Whittemore, et al.,
2001). Some authors (e.g., Whittemore, et al., 2001) argue that Lincoln and Gubas (1985)
translation of the following quantitative to qualitative terms has been most influential: Internal
validity to credibility, external validity to transferability, reliability to dependability, and
objectivity to confirmability. However, Whittemore, et al. (2001) disagreed. They proposed that
the term validity, or the state or quality of being sound, just, and well-founded (Random
House Websters Unabridged Dictionary, 1999, as cited in, Whittemore, et al., 2001) be retained
by the qualitative research community rather than replaced by method-specific terms, since it is
applicable to all research and is universally recognizable. The difference, they argued, lies in the
standards that are used to assure validity.
To that end, after analyzing 13 written works on validity, Whittemore et al. (2001)
66
devised qualitative-specific criteria for evaluating validity, and techniques for identifying and
minimizing validity threats. They classified validity criteria into two tiers: Primary criteria,
consisting of credibility, authenticity, criticality, and integrity, and secondary criteria, composed
of explicitness, vividness, creativity, thoroughness, congruence, and sensitivity. According to
their analysis, primary criteria are relevant to all qualitative research. However, they are
inadequate without the addition of some secondary criteria, which pertain to certain methods
better than others, depending on the study.
The authors (Whittemore et al., 2001) then enumerated 29 common techniques used by
qualitative researchers to assure validity. Of those 29, Creswell and Miller (2000, as cited in
Creswell, 2007) identified eight that are typically used in qualitative research. These are: (a)
prolonged engagement in the field, (b) triangulation of sources, methods or theories, (c) peer
review or debriefing, (d) refining working hypotheses (for negative case analysis), (e) clarifying
researcher bias from the start, (f) member checking, (g) rich detailed descriptions, and (h)
external audits. Among these methods, Creswell recommended applying at least two techniques
in any qualitative study. Similarly, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) have also called for the use
of at least two methods of assuring validity in qualitative research, which they refer to as
triangulation.
Creswell (2007) noted that member checking, the process by which the researcher takes
the data, analysis, interpretations, and conclusions back to the participants so that they can
judge the accuracy and credibility of the account (p. 208) is the most popular method of
establishing credibility, and according to some (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985), the most critical.
Creswell (2007) used this method by furnishing his preliminary analysis containing descriptions
or themes to participants for their comments (p. 209). Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) also
67
advocate member checking to increase what they call descriptive triangulation, or consistency
between researcher and participant[s] (p. 575).
Some authors, particularly in the narrative field, eschew a formulaic notion of validity for
the reason that narrative research is concerned with the subjective, lived experiences of
individuals and the meanings they attribute to them, as opposed to historical accuracy (Reissman,
2008; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). In many cases, it would be impossible to verify the truth of
a participants account by reference to corresponding objective evidence, especially when
studying marginalized populations whose truths are likely to diverge from the mainstream
version of events (Reissman, 2008, p. 186). Thus, the concept of validity in narrative research
emphasizes exactitude of interpretation of the data, rather than confirmation of the datas
veracity. As Reissman (2008) explained, Going back to verify the precise and accurate truth of
the events [the investigator] reports may be impossible and not necessarily important. It is the
analysts interpretative work with the document and others like it that can be interrogated (p.
188).
Reissman (2008) refers to the concept of coherence as a measure of trustworthiness with
respect to narrative data and analysis. She preferred to ask, Do episodes of a life story hang
together? Are sections of a theoretical argument linked and consistent? Are there major gaps and
inconsistencies? Is the interpreters analytic account persuasive? (p. 189). Linde (1993) referred
to coherence as a three-tiered concept: First, the parts of a text the words, sentences and
paragraphs should stand in proper relation to one another (p. 12); second, they must properly
relate to the whole of the text; and third, the text as a whole must be seen as recognizable and
well-formed (p. 12). In that regard, coherence requires a temporal order and a chain of
causality that makes sense vis a vis the analysts interpretation (Linde, 1993, p. 16).
68
In this study, the author applied the following procedures to enhance validity: First, she
triangulated both the methods of analysis (thematic, discursive and critical events) and, where
applicable, the sources of data by incorporating autobiographical accounts from the literature of
individuals in SM relationships. Second, she utilized peer review by furnishing randomly
selected interview transcripts to each of two members of her dissertation committee for thematic
analysis. The author also discussed findings and results with at least one dissertation committee
member, pursuant to which thematic and critical events analysis were refined. Third, the
researcher engaged in member checking by submitting her preliminary interpretation of facts and
basic themes to the research participants for assessment of accuracy [and increased] rigor and
trustworthiness of the findings via . . . descriptive triangulation (Leech & Onwuegbuzie,
2007). Half of the interviewees responded to the researchers request to check the data.
Finally, it is arguable that due to the paucity of information relating to the research topic,
together with the marginalization of the participants, the accuracy or truthfulness of the data
gathered is neither attainable nor relevant to the purpose of the study (Reissman, 2008). As Freud
stated, The true beginning of scientific activity consists rather in describing phenomena and
then in proceeding to group, classify and correlate them (1915, p. 117). This project is not the
first investigation of SM relationships. However, it is the first attempt to extract the meanings
and dynamics involved in this type of interpersonal experience. Thus, the focus is more
appropriately placed on the precision of the researchers interpretations of the facts provided than
on any set of objective truths (Linde, 1993). Endeavoring to achieve maximum accuracy in her
descriptions and interpretations of the latent and manifest material, the author reviewed each
transcript for coherence, and utilized member checking to resolve any gaps in the data.
Moreover, the notion that a narrative account in any setting provides access to objective
69
truth is considered by some to be presumptuous. Spence (1982) calls to mind the inclination to
equate narrative and historical truths, and the inexorable gap between them: Narrative truth is
confused with historical truth and the very coherence of an account may lead us to believe that
we are making contact with an actual happening narrative and historical truth (Spence, 1982).
Particularly in the realm of psychology and the quest to understand the human experience,
Spence suggests that narrative truth eclipses its historical counterpart: That making contact with
the actual past may be of far less significance than creating a coherent and consistent account of
a particular events (p. 28).
Summary
This chapter reviewed the methods and procedures the researcher applied in preparation
for and execution of the research project. The narrative research model was examined, with a
focus on thematic and critical events analyses. The methods and procedures for collecting,
organizing, and analyzing the data were also discussed. Validity was addressed by triangulating
both methods and sources, incorporating member checking, peer review and assessment of
coherence. The next chapter presents the findings of this study.
70
Chapter IV
Presentation of Findings
This chapter addresses the findings from the research question: What is the experience of
being in a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship that regularly incorporates SM?
The eight interviews are presented in the following manner: Each couple is introduced
individually. First, a chronology of the couples narrative is provided in order to create a portrait
of the participants and place the thematic findings in context. Next, emergent themes are
discussed, together with supporting quotations. Thematic analysis was delimited to the content
furnished by the participants (Reissman, 2008).
A three-fold criteria was applied for theme selection to preserve the focus of the study:
Each theme must have been mentioned by both partners, must have pertained to the couples
relationship, and was relevant to SM. Woven through the narrative and thematic discussions are
critical events (e.g.,Webster & Mertova, 2007) and discursive features (e.g., Riessman, 2008)
that were prominent and relevant to the study. Results of the data from each interview are
organized by couple, followed by the identification of six themes identified by the researcher as
common among the participants. The themes are generally presented in the order of their
discussion by the participants. In some cases the order seemed to coincide with the importance of
the issue for the participants, while in others, the themes appeared equally weighted. For ease of
reference, a list of themes, critical events and discursive elements organized by couple is set
forth on Appendix E.
Couple 1: Angela and Geoff
Angela and Geoff have been in a dating relationship for four and a half years, and
currently live together. They met at work. Geoff was married at the time that their relationship
71
commenced, but has since divorced. Angela has never been married. Angela is in her 20s and
Geoff is in his 50s. They consider their relationship egalitarian and only adhere to SM roles
when they play, during which he is dominant and she is submissive to him. She identifies as a
switch, which means she has significant needs of dominance and submission and/or sexual
sadism and masochism, and often participate[s] in either topping or bottoming during a specific
scene depending on which aspect needs to be expressed at that time (Williams, 2006, p. 338).
She enjoys topping others at play parties.
Angela introduced Geoff to the lifestyle after exploring it briefly on her own. A female coworker had approached her at work, stimulated her interest in Fetlife (a kinky website), and
invited her to a local play party. She did not share her interest in kink with Geoff until she
decided she liked it. As Angela explained:
After an initial awkward period where I started first without sharing with you and then
you were like, What the hell is this? Then . . . we both started sharing about it and he
was like, OK I will try it out and see where it goes. Thats where that part of our
relationship kind of came in. I was interested in it first, and then brought it up to Geoff
and he thought OK, lets see where this goes, see if its any fun, and it was.
Angela and Geoff began attending the monthly play parties. Geoff enjoyed the social and
playful aspects of the parties. However, he was initially uncomfortable with the idea of Angela
suffering bruises and other marks on her body. He started making his own toys that would create
the feeling that Angela liked, without causing marks on her body. But eventually, he became
comfortable with the marks, as he recalled:
Over time it started building up a little where it was like, Oh, she really does enjoy this,
and she really can take it because, of course, I had this idea that this little girl, shes just
not going to let people beat on her. And then from there I bought a whip and we [went to]
. . . a little seminar where I [learned how to use it].
Angela and Geoff looked forward to the local monthly play parties, where they played
predominantly with each other and only a select few others, but never in a sexual way. Angela
72
does not reveal her breasts or genitals at play parties, as she feels that only Geoff should have
access, visual or otherwise, to the most private parts of her body.
At the time of the interview, the host of the local play parties had moved, and both Angela
and Geoff felt the loss of this monthly ritual. They had not since found a replacement for these
parties.
The individual themes extracted from the interview with this couple are as follows: (a) SM
as limited to recreation; (b) The significance of SM play parties, including excitement, a sense of
grounding, SM education, and the opportunity to play with others in safe environment; (c) SM as
serving emotional functions: increased confidence; outlet for anger; and (d) SM play as a
mechanism of attunement. These theme are discussed below..
SM as limited to recreation. Angela and Geoff are equal partners who limit their SM
activity to play: We are equals outside the bedroom said Angela. Its just when Im playing I
like to give over control because . . . I like that. It turns me on.
They stressed their ability to distinguish SM from the other (vanilla) aspects of their lives.
As Geoff stated, I think for us we can separate it. We enjoy the BDSM stuff, we enjoy bondage,
we enjoy the spanking, whips and floggers. Angela was quick to add, But its not our whole
life. We enjoy aspects of it and the relationships we made in it, but if you had to . . . put it down
into a pie chart . . . our life, it would be a pretty small slice.
Angela emphasized the normality of their relationship, making clear her intention to use
SM play only a method of enhancing her sex life. She expounded,
We will keep on going to events like this and keep up the friendships weve made. You
know, we want to do the normal life stuff down the line we want to get married and you
know and possibly have a family and that whole thing.
Consistent with the couples assertion that the role of SM in their relationship is limited to
73
play, discursive analysis of the transcript revealed 30 instances of the word play and 26
instances of the word fun.
Significance of SM play parties. The cornerstone of Angela and Geoffs SM experience
was the monthly play party. That event held great significance for the couple: It provided
excitement, a sense of grounding, SM education, opportunity to play with others, and
socialization with like-minded people.
Excitement. Both Angela and Geoff found the play party atmosphere stimulating. I think
for us we both find it pretty exciting to be in the party situation where there are other people
around doing whatever else theyre doing, Geoff reported. With so much activity, Angela
sometimes found it difficult to sustain her attention on one thing:
I found it distracting at first cuz you hear all this other stuff going on around you and if
youre the one whos having stuff done to you then its like, Oh wait my backs turned
and I cant see anything and that sounds interesting over there and I cant focus on whats
being done. But we kind of learn to get in our own little zone when were doing things.
Sense of grounding. The couple also valued the scheduled play time. It was something to
look forward to, plan around and prepare for. Geoff stated, We would arrange it so wed always
have that first Friday night off work. . . . we used to really look forward [to it]. Angela
described it as a grounding point in our month. . . . Sometimes if we were . . . stressed or tired. .
. . it would be refresher.
During the interview, the couple came to the realization that scheduled SM play was
something they both valued and missed. In this exchange, they experienced a critical event that
altered the course of their relationship:
G: We play now. It just seems to be a lot more its spontaneous not scheduled like it
was before, which, just makes it a different atmosphere. When it was scheduled . . . you
plot it ahead of time . . . what are you going to wear, this is going to be different.
Whereas now she might come home from work and I just might grab her and throw her on
the couch and spank her or whatever and it, its more spontaneous. It doesnt seem to be
74
quite the same atmosphere.

A: Yeah, Maybe we should schedule some events just for us so it has the same kind of
G: That wouldnt be easy with her work schedule but yeah, thats what we need to do.
SM education. The couple valued the educational aspect of the play parties. Exposure to
new toys and ideas contributed to the excitement. As Angela remarked, Wed see stuff
people doing stuff you might never have thought of, and its like ,Oh I have to try that!
The parties were also a forum for exchanging ideas and experimenting with different
implements and techniques. Geoff enjoyed learning from others in this way as opposed to trying
to master it on his own:
When we were at the party and playing with other people and all, it was always theyre
showing you something different: Its a slightly different response here, Well why is
that happening? . . . Because there are so many different aspects to it theres always
something more to learn, and its not something you do by yourself.
Opportunity to play with others in a safe environment. Although at the parties Angela
and Geoff played predominantly with one another, they enjoyed the opportunity to play with
others in an environment that did not threaten their monogamy. Often it was to accommodate
Angelas desire to top someone, since Geoff was not interested in bottoming. Angela explained,
Its never anything serious. I like to sometimes be on top . . . . He doesnt like to submit or
do anything like that. . . . So . . . Im like OK, I will try this on somebody else who can get
into it.
Geoff also enjoyed watching Angela top others and, sitting off to the side going, Hit him
harder!
The couple drew clear boundaries between their monogamous relationship and their public
SM play. George said of their permitting a few others to join in their play, She and I are
monogamous but sometimes you just play with other people and its not sex. Angela echoed,
Its just play, its not sexual or anything. Sexual is reserved for just us.
75
Social outlet. Geoff and Angela also took pleasure in the social element of the play parties.
The couple had become friends with many of the partygoers with whom they gathered on a
monthly basis. The parties had served as a springboard for new relationships, over which Geoff
expressed particular enthusiasm: Youd see people that . . . come from all over so you cant just
say, Hey why dont you come over for coffee? Even since the play parties ended, their
friendships have endured. As Geoff relayed,
The same core group of people get together and have dinner and talk. And thats fun. . . .
We arent playing together at all, and thats OK because they are fun people and its
turned into some pretty decent relationships.
SM as serving emotional functions: Increased confidence; outlet for anger. The couple
revealed that SM activity serves an emotional function, particularly for Geoff. Each of them
identified SM as contributing to Geoffs sense of confidence and providing a safe outlet for his
anger. If it affected Angela emotionally, she did not discuss it.
Geoff described feeling demeaned and not respected by others in the past, including his exwife during their long marriage. He recalled, I was in a relationship for a long time with a
person that was pretty strong, not very understanding, really tight ethnic family and there just
wasnt a decent measure of respect for me.
That relationship seemed reflective of his experience in the world: laid back . . . to the
point of walked over. However, he found validation as a Dom within the SM subculture: Then
coming into this was like, Wait a minute. People pay attention to you and youve got power or
you know, at least respect.. . . It was a different vibe that I was getting . . . from previous
crowds.
Geoff revealed a history of rage and anxiety attacks, which he said no longer experiences.
Both he and Angela attribute his increased emotion regulation to SM, as revealed in this
76
exchange:
G: Its like a release.
A: Yeah, and you got to release a side of you that you never really had a chance to
take on before dominant and in control and powerful . . . That had never really
been your experience.
G: Yeah. And before that I was hot or cold. I was either a nice normal person or I
was raging. And the raging always scared me. . . . because . . . I could never control
once it started to release. Id put my hands through the wall.
A: This had been sort of a constructive way for you to release some of that energy
inside of you.
G: Yep, I dont rage.
A: No. Its a controlled, its more of an excitement than a rage.
SM play as a mechanism of attunement. Geoff and Angela emphasized the importance
of attunement in their SM play. Both sought a heightened pleasure achievable only in
combination with evidence of the others delight. The joy is when both people are feeling it,
said Angela. Geoff explained,
Its so intense because youre paying so much attention to your partner. . . . I get a certain
level of satisfaction . . . out of flogging her, using the whip or whatever, but I get a whole
lot more out of reading her reactions. Fast, slow, hard, soft, change it up. . . . Paying
attention to your partner, figuring out what they like, what they dont like thats the real
challenge to it.
That level of attention also imbued their play with a sense of safety. Both emphasized the
importance of limiting their play to things they know their partner could handle. Angela
remarked,
Were big on safety . . . You want to make sure the other person is always OK, who ever
youre playing with, or if youre being played with. We are big on water breaks and
making sure that everybodys OK physically, mentally, emotionally.
Particularly with one another, their main concern was, How do you keep it safe . . . you love
this person, you dont actually want to harm them. Its learning about what that means.
77
Neither one of them indicated internal conflict or regret over the possibility of having
overstepped a boundary. According to Geoff,
I think were careful enough so that and we pay enough attention to each other so that
weve never been placed in a position where we were even going to push things to the
point where we might say Yeah I regret doing that.
Couple 2: Sam and Jen
Sam and Jen have been together for over one year. They lived together as roommates
before they began dating. They are in their 20s and have never been married. They both work in
the artistic performance industry and frequently perform together. Their relationship is an
egalitarian partnership in which they incorporate SM play and symbolism. Each of them identify
as switches.
They were both interested in various applications of rope before they met. Sams interest in
rope originated from a decorative standpoint. He is a tailor by trade, and viewed rope as a means
of adorning the human body in the Japanese Shibari tradition. He began creating decorative
harnesses for friends at clubs, but had not explored the restraining or more intimate aspects of the
art. It was not until he met Jen that he began experimenting with the more sensual aspects of
rope bondage.
Jen was captivated by rope from an early age. She recalled always having a fascination
with tying things, and was very disappointed that the Girl Scouts only taught me a granny knot
and a square knot. Boy Scouts got an entire book on knots. I just always liked rope. She tied up
her Barbie dolls with string as a child.
When San and Jen met, she immediately identified the piece of rope hanging on his hip.
She remembered, I called you out when I saw the rope on your hip. I said You do the thing,
and if you give me the name I will be really impressed. Although they experienced a strong
78
connection at that first meeting, they were not able to date because of separate relationship
issues. However, it inspired Jen to begin making her own rope:
I started making my own rope and the first piece - I ended up giving my first rope to him
once I figured out how to make it properly. . . . I thought I wanted this person back in my
life so I figured . . . if I cant share romantic things then I just wanted him back as like a
friend. And I knew he would appreciate it, and I was ok with him taking the rope and
using it on, at the time, his girlfriend. I just wanted the rope to be appreciated.
Because they shared the same reverie for rope, her gift impacted him deeply. They
eventually embarked on an exclusive relationship that incorporated rope bondage and
flagellation in the privacy of their home. Their goal with SM has been to provide one another
with sensory experiences that are stimulating and exciting but never humiliating. Their play lacks
the power exchange sought by many who engage in SM. Rather, they use SM solely as a vehicle
for exploring vulnerability, enhancing their mutual trust and intimacy and increasing personal
resilience.
Below is a discussion of the following individual themes that emerged from the interview
with this couple: (a) Trust that partner will respect limitations; (b) SM as serving an emotional
function - Increased safety in the relationship (c) Use of SM solely to express care and create
pleasure; (d) Use of SM play to increase resilience; (e) Use of SM play to satisfy sensory needs;
and (f) Importance of symbolism
Trust that Partner will Respect Limitations. Trust was a leitmotif woven throughout
Sam and Jens narrative. The term itself appeared 20 times in one hour, second only to the word
rope, which was mentioned 46 times. The couple likened SM play to an exercise in trust:
J: We dont really call it a lifestyle but its definitely [something] that builds trust.
S: The fact of bondage itself is a trust thing. You need to trust the other person entirely to
let them put you in a vulnerable position. Without that trust . . . it wouldnt be OK.
Sam emphasized that trust develops through their SM play by the top attuning to the
79
bottoms emotional state and reacting with care and sensitivity. In this way, the top demonstrates
trustworthiness, and the bottom experiences the top as reliable. Sam recalled an example of his
attunement to Jens emotional condition:
The first couple times she had a little freak out about it and . . . she didnt have to say the
safety word because I knew she stopped doing OK. So I took the rope off of her and
comforted her . . . which . . . demonstrated the trust, but also builds the trust. It shows we
care for each other and we are not trying to force each other through the situation.
Trust between these partners also emanates from their use of the safety word. Sam and Jen
agreed on a safety word, which they can use at any time with complete confidence that the other
partner will immediately cease the activity:
Another huge thing is about trust and the safety word. The safety word is basically if the
sub decides to say that everything stops because if something becomes too much or if they
have some kind of psychological breakdown that they werent expecting or something like
that where they just cant deal with what is happening.
The couple has only used the safety word once during play because, as Jen noted, We just
read each other so well we dont need to. However, they have adopted it as a tool within their
general relationship. When one of them feels emotionally overwhelmed by the other in any
situation, he or she can invoke the safety word, [b]ecause it makes a person stop, said Sam. It
is so engrained in our heads because its important, that it just makes us stop. Jen added,
[The word] stop doesnt always work, but albatross - yeah thats our safety word . . . I
chose albatross because its a Monty Python reference and its ridiculous. So even if you
are in a bad place. . . albatross (laugh) . . . Its funny. . . It makes it better.
SM as serving an emotional function: Increased safety in the overall relationship.
Both Sam and Jen emphasized ways in which trusting one another during their shared SM
experiences enhances their sense of being known in the relationship. As Sam noted,
Ive personally experienced where after trusting her with the rope situation and stuff like
that, I dont pause to question whether or not she understands what Im saying.
Jen, in particular, expressed feeling safer to be herself with Sam as a result of their SM play. For
80
her, the couples SM dynamic creates a greater opportunity to be vulnerable without fear of
reprisal. In her words,
Its helping with communication on a deeper level because if you can trust someone to
play, you can trust you will be able to talk to that person. Like, I have this weird thing in
my head and I figured Id tell you about it. Not: I hope you dont get upset, I just had
this weird thing going on in my head today.
In her relationship with Sam, Jen conveyed a sense of freedom to experiment with fantasies and
ideas that she would otherwise not feel safe to reveal for fear of rejection:
Sometimes you get this idea and you feel its not OK to act on but [if you have] a partner
you feel comfortable and safe with and . . . something off the cuff comes up in your head
and you can be like, What do you think about this? And you can experiment with that in
a sane manner, in a way thats not going to be detrimental to either [partners] social
image because its too far out for other people to want to deal with.
Use of SM solely to express care and create pleasure. Sam and Jen were adamant that
they use SM play only to express care for one another, and to provide each other with
pleasurable sensory experiences. According to Sam, We are more into the love aspect of the
whole thing. Neither of them is either dominant or submissive. They simply take turns guiding
[the other] person through an experience they enjoy.
For this couple SM play is not about pain or domination, although it may appear that way.
As Sam explained,
Im into sensation and because I have a very high pain tolerance I may be seen sometimes
as . . . more pain oriented. . . . I very much enjoy the pain of [the flogger] but [it about] the
sensation of it after it hurts because it causes the blood vessels to dilate and make the skin
more sensitive so . . . when she would hit me she would run her hand over it afterwards.
Sam enjoys the flogging because he experiences it as an expression of love, rather than an act of
aggression. By running her hand over his back when she flogs him, Jen imbues the act of
flogging with the spirit of affection, transforming pain into pleasure. As Sam described,
[i]f it wasnt for the fact that she does the thing afterwards [with her hand], it would
become too much. Because . . . its telling me that she cares about me. Its not just
81
something shes doing because shes getting out stress or something [and] needs to beat
something.
Jens intention is never to hurt Sam, and she runs her hand over his back to soothe him:
Thats why I pet you after I hit you, she admitted, because I feel bad. I love you. You like
this, thats why Im doing this, but I love you.
The couple is particularly careful to avoid anything humiliating. Sam explained, Were
not into humiliation play because we both feel that is very damaging to the psyche. . . . A lot of
people associate humiliation play with BDSM [but] it is not a necessary part of it. For that
reason, they do not engage in public play. Sam believes, the dungeon situation involves the
public aspect of humiliation, which he deems unhealthy.
Use of SM play to increase resilience. Both Sam and Jen emphasized that their SM play
increases their resilience in situations outside of their relationship. Sam referred to pain tolerance
and the confidence that comes with overcoming a stressful situation:
Pain tolerance is part of it. Its being put into a strenuous place and being able to deal with
that without it being too detrimental. . . . Having to deal with the stress sometimes can be
good for you because it can make you feel more accomplished once you get through the
situation.
For Jen, the knowledge that she can withstand the stress of a taxing SM scene acts as a
counterbalance to those times when she feels less resilient:
I suppose in a way it would . . . give balance to you not being so resilient to things. It
wont always necessarily make you stronger. It just can help balance out the times when
you dont know how to deal with stuff.
Use of SM play to satisfy sensory needs. Sam and Jen share a penchant for intense
physical contact and affection. In addition to Sams desire for the pain of the flogger, Jen seeks a
feeling of snugness, and both refer to themselves as chewers. Sam described chewing as a
version of affection. It is like hugging someone with your tongue, which Jen demonstrated by
82
biting Sams shoulder.

Jens desire to feel squeezed manifests in various ways. Being tied with rope is especially
gratifying for her, since it feels like a full body embrace. She recounted the first time Sam tied
her up: I was like, I dont deserve this. . . . Someone is finally doing the thing that I really want
. . . . How am I possibly worthy of doing this? Oh my god! I was just freaking out.
Jen also likes to wear things that provide a similar sensation. She recalled, I always
enjoyed wearing chokers. . . . I have always enjoyed wearing something that is snug to me.
Importance of symbolism. Jen and Sam place a high value on symbolism in their
relationship. They identified rope, collars, and linking fabric as items that hold symbolic
significance for them. Their SM play revolves predominantly around rope, or Shibari, which
Sam defined as the Japanese technique of rope work on the human body to either bind or
decorate. The couple shares a spiritual association with rope, and makes their own rope to
enhance that connection. Sam described:
We make our own rope because we have a very spiritual connection with the rope itself, as
we find that rope causes a physical connection as well as a spiritual connection between
the two of us because of the intention we put on with the rope when its being put on the
person.
In addition to the spiritual connection, rope enhances the couples intimacy:
[Practicing rope bondage creates] a deep connection between two partners. It . . . shows a
willingness to let the other lead, and also from the other end, it shows a willingness to just
trust and follow. And [there is the] more literal view of tying the knot when people get
Rope also retains a special significance for this couple. It is a unique interest that each of
them pursued prior to meeting, and it played an integral role in bringing them together.
Their initial encounter and courtship involved rope, and was identified as a critical event during
the interview. Sam recalled meeting Jen backstage at a performance event:
She pointed out the rope hanging off my hip . . . and thats when she asked if I knew the
83
name. . . . And that moment was pretty monumental to me because she was talking to me.
Jen recounted how their initial shared interest in rope touched off a cascade of common interests
and shared sense of intimacy:
I guess one of the monumental things for me was actually seeing that there was somebody
I could talk to about [rope]. And I think that another one was the time I gave you a piece
[of rope] . . . it was just nice to see that somebody else liked some of the same things I
do, and like not just the rope thing, but being able to just walk in a giant forest.
The couple also shares an interest in collars as a symbol of their relationship. They showed
the researcher one of the matching purple leather collars they created. Each has a small ring with
a lock hanging from it.
The collars serve both a public and private purpose. Publicly they represent taken. Jen
noted that, unlike most collars in the SM environment, theirs do not signify submissiveness:
Some people thought that me wearing my collar meant I was presenting myself as a submissive,
but its more or less stating off limits. Our definitions for things are a little different than
everybody elses. Sam concurred: Its basically a wedding ring but more visible.
Privately, the collar signifies the presence of the other. Sam explained that Jen would lock
his collar when he would be gone for a few days for work. He liked that she had been the one
who had put the lock on. . . . [It] would make me feel like she was there with me.
Jen and Sam have also worn their collars at alternative lifestyle events and connected them
together to symbolize the uniqueness of their relationship:
Sometimes we will wear a linking something [that] just connects the two of us. Something
common in the BDSM community is the sub will wear a collar and there will be a leash
held by the Dominant. . . . The silk going between both of the rings, my ring to her ring,
represents a demonstration of equality - that we are both equal in the situation no matter
what.
Couple 3: Sabrina and Barry
Sabrina and Barry have been living together for four and a half years, and have been
84
married for one year. It is the second marriage for each of them. She is in her 40s and he is 50
years old. They discovered the SM lifestyle individually and met in an SM internet chat room.
They enjoy a 24/7 D/s (Dominant/submissive) relationship in which he is the Dominant and she
is the submissive.
He is a declared sadist, but she does not identify as a masochist. They share what they refer
to as a low-protocol, service-oriented relationship. They analogize it to a traditional 1950s
marriage. He works and she takes care of the home. She enjoys attending to all of his needs.
The couple engages in SM play predominantly in dungeons, since they live in an apartment
and often share it with her kids. However, SM is fully integrated into their daily lives. She noted
that they do not play very often [b]ecause we do it on a daily basis. It is just in our relationship.
I walk into the bathroom and hes getting out of the shower and he smacks my tit (laughs). Its
just stuff like that.
Sabrina was interested in bondage as a teenager, although she was unfamiliar with SM:
Back in the 80s I was very much into . . . the hard-core punk rock scene. . . . I didnt
know it was BDSM but I was always geared towards all the bondage stuff. I had the
bondage pants and the bondage belts and the bracelets. I just thought it was really cool.
She also recalled always being more sexually aggressive than her partners, which often shocked
them and caused her to wonder what made her different.
Sabrina described her first husband as not sexually dominant, but interpersonally
domineering. In that relationship she deserted her punk rock presentation in favor of a rigid,
conservative Norman Rockwell type. It was not until after her divorce that she began exploring
SM. There she met various men through whom she discovered that she much preferred the
submissive role.
In contrast, Barry was, as he described, absolutely clueless about any of this stuff until
85
later adulthood. He had always enjoyed harder sex but had not ventured into anything else.
After his divorce, he discovered SM on the internet. He met a woman on a website with whom
he engaged in his first SM scene, which he said blew the top of my head off. It was fucking
fantastic and it ended with us both holding each other and crying and it was a revelation. A
revelation. But then maybe 24 hours later I found out how insane this girl was. They parted
ways and he proceeded to embark on a mission to learn more about SM.
On Sabrina and Barrys first date they experienced an immediate connection and sense of
compatibility. They share a history of alcoholism and each completed 12-step programs prior to
meeting, the underlying tenets of which they incorporate into their relationship. For example,
they insist on swift communication when something is wrong and do not let problems simmer
under the surface. The mutual focus on their relationship during the interview was manifest in
the term relationship arising on 50 occasions.
The following themes were extracted from the researchers interview with this couple: (a)
Extreme version of traditional relationship; (b) Valuing immediate communication of problems
(c) D/s complimenting existing compatibility; (d) Concerns regarding boundaries; (e) Divergent
views regarding relation of D/s to self; and (f) The question of control. They are each addressed
below:
Extreme version of traditional relationship. Sabrina and Barry incorporate D/s in
conjunction with strong traditional gender roles and a hierarchical power structure. They have a
low protocol relationship with few rituals. Instead, she simply defers to him in general.
Like a traditional marriage, he works all day while she maintains the home and attends to
his domestic needs. He explained, By all external appearances we are just like everybody else,
to which she added, especially to our vanilla friends and our family and children . . . we have a
86
very traditional kind of 1950s relationship. I make all his meals for him and do all the laundry. .
. He does nothing at home.
She described her domestic duties without any sign of resentment, and even with a tone of
zealous appreciation. She said with a giggle, Everything [in his closet] magically appears folded
and cleaned. . . . He does make the messes. But I love it. I dont want him to do anything.
Sometimes he even provokes her by intentionally creating disarray, about which he chuckled, I
dont call them messes. I call them opportunities for service.
Neither of them could imagine removing the D/s elements from their union. It is on
automatic, and seems natural for them to relate to one another in this way. As Barry described,
Its so engrained. Its so much a part of our relationship. . . . theres like no maintenance
needed.
He is king. The couple agrees that Barry holds the title of king in the family. He
declared, Im the king and Ill do whatever the fuck I want. In addition to his authority over the
domicile, his sovereignty also manifests in the privilege of spontaneously grabbing, pinching, or
pulling her in whatever way stirs his fancy. He explained, Im kinky. Im a sadist. She never
knows whenever Im going to pinch her. . . . or pull on her or do something. She enjoys his
playful extemporaneous smites. She admitted: I always forget that I like it. And then Im like
Oh, I do kinda like it (laugh). For a minute I [am] like why did you do that to me?! And then
its like ohhhh (giggles).
Both feel taken care of. Both Barry and Sabrina feel cared for within their D/s dynamic.
Being dominated by Barry makes Sabrina feel safe, and she is happy to take care of him in
return: I like to take care of him. And I do like for him to be in charge. . . Its nice having
someone you trust who can guide you. It makes me feel safe.
87
Similarly, Barry associates domestic ministry with care. He offered, The place is clean . . .
she takes really, really, good care of me. And that feels good. It feels good to be taken care of,
and it reinforces the D/s, reinforces that Im the king, so its good.
Valuing immediate communication of problems. Barry and Sabrina extol the practice of
discussing issues forthwith, a value they each adopted through 12-step programs and the SM
community. They credit this policy with the fact that they are rarely angry for any duration:
Sabrina stated,
We dont let things go. We deal with things head on immediately. . . . We dont wait for
things to go away, we know things are not going to go away, and if you try to push
something under the rug its just going to sit there and mold and fester and get worse. So
we deal with everything immediately as it comes up.
Sabrina and Barry are also well versed in taking responsibility for their missteps. As Barry
explained, We are both pretty adept at saying OK, Im sorry. I was pissed off about this or I
was grumpy about this and I snapped.
The D/s nature of the relationship also helps Sabrina, who is sometimes unable to express
her negative feelings. Barry explained, If I ask her whats wrong and she avoids it, well I just
dont allow that. No. TV gets turned off. Sit down. OK whats going on? What are you
thinking? What are you feeling?
D/s complimenting existing compatibility. Sabrina and Barry share similar values,
interests, and worldviews which they noticed immediately. They experience their relationship as
relatively easy, and believe their D/s dynamic contributes to their sense of compatibility. Barry
stated, We really dont have arguments about big fundamental things. We kind of see the world
the same way. Very much the same way. . . . And shes the perfect person for me.
Sabrina expressed similar unbridled enthusiasm for their compatibility:
We have always had such a good relationship since day one. We just are the right people
88
for each other. Really I do feel like hes my soul mate. We just dont really have any
problems. Everything happens so naturally. Its just not hard work to be with him. . . . But I
always knew that relationships dont have to be hard. And with him its not.
Barry and Sabrina also share a compatible vision of a desirable D/s relationship. They are
both drawn to the predetermined structure and clear expectations that are available in a D/s
setting. Sabrina expressed this sentiment:
I think the D/s does help our relationship also because we kind of know our roles. . . .
Like, before I make a decision about this or that I have to ask him is it OK. . . . But there
are other things, like groceries - I mean we are very very low protocol in things that I
know I can make decisions on - so it really makes it a lot easier because we have all these
things kind of communicated and taken care of so theres really no questions.
Similarly, Barry enjoys the consistency of a D/s marriage, in which the dynamic is just part of
our everyday make up.
Concerns regarding boundaries. The boundaries of this couples relationship appear to
be a topic of negotiation that arises in connection with their public play, and primarily concerns
Barrys physical and sexual desires. Barry enjoys administering heavy impact play, which
Sabrina cannot tolerate. Although he insisted that he was not frustrated by this limitation, he
admitted that when playing with Sabrina,
I cant really reach sort of Dom space - that level of Dom space - from the play that we
do. I still have the emotional spiritual benefit of it. I still have that enjoyment but its rare
after one of our scenes that Im like buzzing and have to sit down for a while.
Sabrina expressed guilt and frustration at being unable to meet her husbands need. She admitted,
I think its more of a frustration for me because I feel bad and I feel like Im not making him
happy because I cant take it to that level.
They are now considering a second female submissive to accommodate Barrys desire for
harder play. On one occasion in the past, Sabrina had watched Barry demonstrate impact play on
another submissive and she found it arousing: Oh my gosh I got so turned on! I was like wow!
89
Thats hot! He so is not doing that shit to me! That is amazing! In the past she had enjoyed cotopping with a previous boyfriend, and so she thought she would like it with Barry, perhaps by
holding the bottom rather than doing the striking. In this way, they seemed to believe that he
could find complete satisfaction without jeopardizing their relationship.
Therefore, they recently posted a solicitation on a popular fetish website, and were clear
that it would be limited to non-sexual public play. As Sabrina interjected, Definitely no sex!
The wiener stays in the pants!
In connection with the discussion of adding an additional submissive to their public play,
the couple congenially debated the issue of when fantasy makes for an undesirable reality. Barry
commented to Sabrina,
Its funny, you say no sex, and Im not looking to swing or add a third or any of that stuff,
but theres a common saying in BDSM, What were once limits are now desires. So who
knows where it could go. And it may turn out to be a land mine for us. It may turn out to
be - it really wasnt a good idea.
Unlike Barry, Sabrina had had previous experience with swinging and bringing additional
parties into a relationship. She had learned the hard way that sometimes there are things where
theres an awesome fantasy but when you make it reality, its not so great. However, Barry still
admitted fantasizing about her getting banged by . . . a room full of tough black guys. The
conversation continued:
S: This is one of those things thats a great fantasy but in real life honey, you
wouldnt like that! (laughs)
B: Well, you dont know. YOU wouldnt like it for sure. I might fucking dig it. I
dont know!
S: You say that now!
B: In my mind I think it would be fucking super hot. You know, but were not M/s
[Master/slave], we are D/s and there might be some things we would be trying that
were not going to try as D/s, because there are things she has definitely told me I
90
am not interested.
Hence, Barry easily revealed entertaining gang bang fantasies involving his wife, and alluding to
fantasies of an M/s relationship with her in which he would have the power to enact his dark
sexual wishes. However, he indicated acquiescing to her more restrictive boundaries to preserve
the relationship.
Divergent views regarding relation of D/s to self. Although neither Barry nor Sabrina
could imagine their relationship without the D/s elements, they expressed different views of the
genesis of their SM affinities. For Barry, D/s is a lifestyle choice that, although enjoyable, and
perhaps the best path for him, he could renounce it if necessary. He explained,
Could I survive and be happy without D/s? I think I could. Its hard to put the cat back in
the bag once its out, but had I never let this cat out, yeah, I think it would be very possible
for me to live a happy vanilla lifestyle as long as I was doing things to continually better
myself and learn how to be happier.
On the other hand, Sabrina implied that SM is an innate aspect of her personality, traceable
back to adolescence when she had a bondage fetish without understanding its meaning. Yeah
this is me, she stated. As an adult, the vanilla dating scene always felt wrong to her: Even
when I was single . . . and I was on Match.com or eHarmony and trying to date, I was like, This
is just not me. . . . I dont feel comfortable here.
She was also convinced that her previous vanilla marriage was a veiled D/s relationship in
terms of power structure: When I really found out about this lifestyle I was like, Gosh, Ive
been living this lifestyle for a long time . . . I just think this is kind of our personalities.
Importance of SM community. Sabrina and Barry are quite entrenched in their local SM
community. SM has become the focal point of their social life, and the source of most of their
friendships. Sabrina was surprised at the kindness and integrity that she encountered in these
relationships:
91
Before I knew this lifestyle existed I thought anyone in this lifestyle would have to be serial
murderers. [But] everyone I know is just the nicest, most honest, because you have to be
honest in this lifestyle. . . . We just know the nicest people and they are all just freaks like
us.
Barry is also deeply involved in the SM community, in more than simply a social capacity.
He is one of the leading members of an SM mens group that has pioneered a movement within
the larger SM sodality, and attends weekly meetings and annual conferences.
The question of control. Although there is no ambiguity in their respective dominant and
submissive roles, the dynamic between Sabrina and Barry is complex. For example, Barrys
dominant behavior is not necessarily motivated by his desire to exert authority. Rather, in some
events, Sabrina intentionally provokes it:
B: Every once in while there maybe needs to be a little reminder. If shes getting mouthy
or in a mood . . . I have to remind myself. I may need to be a little more dominant.
S: Its funny - I think I subconsciously get a little more mouthy - I think I want to be put
in my place. Im not consciously thinking that, but when he gets a little lax and I get to run
around and do what I want, thats when I do get more mouthy, because I like -Its good for
me. . . . Its nice to be with someone that is molding me into a good person.
They described a particular instance in which she had been acting mad at the world for
days and could not identify the source of her anger. Barry said, [s]he was like chewing nails.
And we sat down Saturday afternoon and I said What has crawled up your, what is bothering
you? And she could not articulate - she could not pinpoint what [it] was.
Barry had become irritated with her submerged anger. That night during a scene at the
dungeon, he decided to use the paddles that she had specifically forbade him from using due to
the pain they inflicted. I had the thought Bitch, you dont know what youre pissed off at, Im
gonna give you something to be pissed off at! With that, he crossed a hard line.
However, Barry recalled, It turned out to be a fucking fantastic scene and I think you
spaced harder than youve ever spaced before. [But] she was angry at me and she was just still
92
angry in general. Yet, Sabrina was grateful, as she explained,

[The next morning] I felt 100% better. It was like all that ick I had been carrying around - I
didnt even know why I was mad - I just had this chip on my shoulder. . . . I was able to
get all my emotions out that night. . . . It was like that was the best thing you could have
done! I mean, what he did, it may have been crossing a line, but honestly he did make the
right decision and it did work for me. So . . . dont ever fucking do that again! (laughs)
Couple 4: Diane and Reggie
Diane and Reggie have been together for almost six years. They are engaged to be married,
and have both been married before. They are each in their 40s. Prior to meeting, Diane had been
exploring SM on the internet, looking for a dominant man but not knowing how to go about it, or
even exactly what she was looking for. She reported, I had already gone down a path of
exploration . . . but I did not know about this lifestyle or this community or what I possibly had
in common with other people yet.
She found herself on the Adult Friend Finder website and noticed an icon that showed
somebody in handcuffs. As she described, I was like click! And that was my first introduction
to my Holy shit theres websites for this stuff!
Yet finding the type of relationship Diane was looking for was not easy. She was not
seeking simply kinky sex, and did not want to be handcuffed under the table on a first date
(which she had politely turned down on one occasion). She wanted a male Dominant to take
control in specific ways.
Diane met Reggie on Adult Friend Finder and they were both surprised to find they had an
immediate connection. They talked for hours. Diane even ventured to reveal that she was looking
for a particular kind of D/s relationship. She recounted,
I wanted a relationship, and I wanted a certain kind, and I wasnt sure I could have it with
him, which is what held me back. . . . So I told him right from the front. . . . I want you
to know this is kind of a journey Ive been on for the past few months and . . . Im not
putting any demands, and Im just saying this is a journey and do you want to join me? . .
93
. Or are you like freaked out?

He said he was not freaked out, But I think he was more freaked out than he told me he was.
But he went.
However, after that first date Diane rebuffed his attempts to contact her. She was quite
attracted to him, but had been in abusive relationships in the past. While she was looking for a
dominant man, she was unsure how to distinguish between dominance and abusiveness. She
recalled,
[When he] kissed me . . . goodbye, he had his hand on the front of my neck and I was
like, I love that! And . . . I knew I was not going to stop because I had been involved in
relationships before that were very wrong, very abusive but I still found myself attracted
to a certain kind of dominant man. Theres dominant and theres . . . abusive, and I didnt
know the difference going into that previous relationship, so I was stuck with someone
who was abusive rather than just dominant.
Hence, with Reggie, she said, I was being really careful because I didnt want to go down that
road again. But I was not going to settle for something I knew wouldnt be fulfilling either.
Reggie had not considered himself a dominant at that time. His only SM-type experience
was with one previous girlfriend. She wanted to be choked during sex, which he described as a
little unnerving.
Eventually, Diane responded to Reggies entreaties, and they began dating. However, she
was also dating another man she had met in the interim, with whom she shared a D/s dynamic
(which she did not describe). When Reggie told her he wanted an exclusive relationship with her,
she explained that she needed a dominant man with certain qualities. She was clear, and he
agreed to her terms.
The couple proceeded to date exclusively. However, after one year Diane was not satisfied.
Reggie recalled,
It was a year into our relationship and she said, Im not getting exactly what I need from
94
you. And it takes me a long time to learn. And she said, Im going on this site [Fetlife]
and Im going to start talking to people Im, were, friends with. And you can either
follow me or this relationship is pretty much over. Because if you follow me you can
learn how to be a better Dom.
In an effort to salvage their relationship, Reggie agreed. He did not want to lose her. Yet, after
six more months he still was not meeting her emotional needs, and neither of them was happy.
They had adopted a sort of quasi-SM relationship, going through certain motions, trying to
capture the dynamic that she envisioned, but Reggie was not fully invested. She was finally
prepared to leave him if he could not give her the kind of attention she sought. In a critical event
that they both identified, she gave him an ultimatum, without making any demands, and he
responded:
I said Holy crap! This relationship is going to end. Its time for me to REALLY pay
attention to her. Pay attention because I wasnt happy, she wasnt happy. We were going
nowhere. And I was like, OK, this is crap, because I love her with all my heart. I know
she loves me. I want this to work.
Reggie admitted,
I wasnt putting my 100% into this. . . . So at that point I really started to get involved started reading peoples blogs . . . on BDSM. And then, I dont know . . . it wasnt until . .
. the last year [that] I could finally say, This is who I am. This is what I wanted to give
her.
Reggie was finally willing to risk communicating with her openly and trusting that it would
bring them closer. They now share a relational foundation that they agree on, including rituals
that provide her with the attention she desires. They plan to be married next year.
Following are the themes identified by the researcher in the interview with this couple: (a)
Relationship as negotiation of needs; (b) SM as serving a emotional functions: presence,
attunement and emotional containment; (c) SM play as sensation rather than pain; (d) No secrets;
and (e) Importance of SM community These issues are discussed below.
95
Relationship as negotiation of needs. From the very beginning, Diane made clear that
she was seeking to gratify certain needs through a romantic relationship. She explained, I
didnt want to struggle in a relationship anymore, so I just came clean and told him . . . about
the mental/emotional needs I have.
In Dianes view, her particularly strong emotional needs and his specific sexual needs
must be satisfied, and part of their job as a couple is to negotiate that exchange. As she
proclaimed, [h]e needs what he needs. I need what I need. And we had to meet in the middle.
Diane admits that both of their needs may be extreme, which makes negotiating them
particularly scary.
You open yourself up -wide up - for rejection, insult, and just the risk someone of saying,
God youre crazy! Are you serious? You just open yourself wide up for that. And I
dont think it has anything to do with BDSM. We just take the chance because we have
to, because our needs and desires are more off-stream and intense than vanilla people.
Theres a balance there, stated Reggie, which the couple struggled to find for years.
It was evident that Diane championed this crusade. She framed the relationship as a
pursuit of need gratification, making it clear: If I cant get what I need from you then we are just
going to break up. Reggie eventually acquiesced in order to keep her: I made a choice. I didnt
want to lose her so I said OK. . . . Lets learn what this is all about . . . because I wasnt giving
her quite what she needed yet as a dominant. The couples negotiation of needs dominated the
interview, as evinced by 49 instances the word need in various iterations.
SM as serving emotional functions: Presence, attunement, and emotional
containment. Diane described her emotional needs with precision. She required Reggie to be
fully present, attuned to her emotional states and able to contain her when she felt chaotic. He
learned to do this in several ways: By maintaining his composure when she could not, using SM
play to provide relief, and adopting SM rituals.
96
Diane needed Reggie to take control when she felt emotionally overwhelmed. As she
exhorted him from the start:
If you let me run this relationship I will run it right into the ground. I just do. I just do.
Because if hes not strong, I will look for it. And I challenge it and I just spin out of
control and I get unreasonable and you know, if I dont have somebody who is strong
who can tell me to stop and make me feel safe and calm . . .
Diane specifically required Reggie to maintain his composure and take care of her emotions
when she felt out of control, rather than be triggered by her anger. This was a challenge for
Reggie, which contributed to the tumult in their relationship: Because he let my mind just spin.
He did nothing to calm it down. He would be like, God youre being a bitch, and he would
ignore me and Id be like ehhhhhhh . . . he would take it personally.
In order to be the regulating force that Diane needed, Reggie had to learn to quickly read
her nonverbal communication, a skill at which he has become adept:
Now . . . as soon as she walks in the door I can see it in her face. I can see it in the way she
carries herself that shes about ready to push some buttons here. And I have to get up and I
have to put that at bay the moment I recognize it. Otherwise shes gonna get ornery, shes
gonna get cranky, shes gonna push my buttons. . . .
He also knows how to respond. He tells her,
Lookenough . . . youre home, youre not at work now . . . You are here under me.
Youre not in charge of me. Im in charge of you. . . . Its time for you to step down. And I
just have to put her in her place. Not in her place, but in a place that she likes to be.
Reggie also learned to use SM play to help Diane still her emotional storm. During the day
Diane might call or text him, extoling, I had a bad day. I need some relief. And thats where
our BDSM, more of the bondage comes into play.
The couple also uses SM rituals to give Diane the consistent attention she seeks. As she
insisted, Im NOT gonna be old news. These rituals include veiled signals he gives her when
they are in a vanilla setting:
97
There is a certain look I can give her. There are certain signals I can give her that they
dont catch, or they dont know, and, its a comfort for her that I can still relay the
dominant side of me to her . . . . She still knows that Im still here. . . . Both of us can then
look at each other later and say, Theres the love.
He also might wink his left eye at her, and thats her key that We are in vanilla, but Im still
watching, still paying attention.
They also employ daily rituals, upon which she places significant value. She explained,
I was looking for was a tug on my collar, or putting my cuffs on my every night, or
something that was just for me, not for anybody else. And just the little bit of that every
day. It had to be every day. You cant skip a day.
These rituals remind Diane that she is the abiding object of Reggies affection. The comfort is
that nothing can distract him from me.
SM play as sensation rather than pain. Neither Diane nor Reggie identify as
sadomasochistic. Their physical SM practices are intended to provide pleasurable sensations
through various means. Diane enjoys a certain level of pain because it puts me in a - kind of like
massage. . . . Like you get the tingle and you get zoned because it feels so good. However, she
will not engage in extremely painful activities, and could not have a relationship with a sadist
who . . . [wants] to physically beat somebody into a crying mess. I cant take that much pain.
Similarly, Reggie is not interested in administering pain. He prefers to provide Diane with
a multifarious sensory experience: Anything from light fingers . . . to dull knives over the body,
so she gets the steel effect, or draping chains over her . . . The smell of leather.
No secrets. In negotiating the terms of their relationship, Diane insisted they disclose their
emotions, desires, fantasies and innermost thoughts. She views any concealed thoughts as a
threat to their relationship. In her words,
You need to be open and honest about what you need and that includes everything. You
cant have secret agendas, you cannot have a secret desire: I really want somebody to tie
me up - whatever, sexual desire, emotional desire. You cant have a secret. You just
98
cant because it will just stay there.

Reggie eventually and painstakingly agreed. He now attributes the success of their monogamy in
large part to this policy:
That was one of the hardest things that Ive come to grips that I could open up to her about
some of these very intimate things that Ive kept a secret my whole life and knew I
couldnt share with anybody . . . It helps get that off my chest and its not inside eating
away and building and me possibly cheating on her. I can go to her and say, This is what
Im thinking. Please help me I want to talk to you about this. Help me understand.
As part of their full disclosure approach, Diane insisted on knowing all of Reggies desires,
including those regarding other women: If theres somebody youve got your eye on lets talk,
she explained. Maybe it will work, maybe it wont. Subsequently, Reggie revealed a desire to
have a second woman. Although Reggie claimed he did not wish to have sex with the other
woman, the idea is something Diane struggles with. She went on:
We negotiate the details but still the idea that he could desire somebody else is - Im not
enough. But I dont think thats it at all. It has nothing to do with me. Its just his desire,
and to me its a physical sexual desire. It has nothing to do with how he feels about me.
Importance of SM community. Reggie and Diane are exceptionally entrenched in their
local SM community. They are members of a D/s household with two other D/s couples (where
they gather but do not reside), and value the community as a place where they feel accepted and
understood. Diane likes that it is pretty raw. Reggie continued: Its very honest, accepting,
open . . . I can talk to these guys about things I cant talk to other people about, even my own
brother.
Couple 5: Fendi and Josh
Fendi and Josh met on an online dating site five years ago. They have been married for
over one year. They are in their 60s and have both been previously married. During the
interview, they seemed quite enamored with each other and the success of their relationship, as
99
reflected within the themes and by the 56 instances of word relationship during the interview.
Fendi commenced her exploration of SM 35 years ago, and referred vaguely to continuing
it between relationships and as an independent side pursuit. She received formal training in a
high protocol Master-slave household for several years, which culminated in her graduating with
professional Mistress status. However, she later realized that she had a fundamentally submissive
nature.
Josh began exploring SM 15 years ago on the internet and then through the local SM
community. His interest piqued after the dissolution of a marriage that was wrought with power
struggles. He believes he has an innate dominant personality, which Fendis submissive
disposition perfectly complements.
By the time Fendi and Josh met, they had each developed solid SM identities: He was a
declared Dominant, and he described her as the first woman he had ever encountered who
truly had a slave heart. Each of them had also spent years working on themselves. They
attribute the success of their relationship in large part to the high level of self-knowledge and
psychological independence they had worked hard to achieve in their own respective lives.
Fendi and Josh refer to their relationship as a 24/7 daddy-little girl D/s dynamic. It is low
protocol, and similar to a marriage with traditional gender roles, but magnified: He has more
control than in a traditional relationship, in that he has the final say on all decisions, and she has
more room to be emotionally vulnerable. It is a mutually nurturing dynamic, in that he
experiences her gift to him of ultimate authority as a show of care, and she experiences his
assumption of responsibility and interest in her vulnerability as nurturance and security. These
respective roles required virtually no negotiation.
Each of them recalls having SM fantasies as children and adolescents. They believe their
100
respective Dominant and submissive natures are innate. As Fendi stated, [this is] who we are . .
. We are not role playing.
Fendi and Josh are also leaders in their local SM community, which they helped to create.
In that connection, Josh recently acquired and renovated a space in which he fashioned an SM
dungeon and community center for Fendi, which she calls her Taj Mahal. She beamed, Some
guy in India built the Taj Mahal for his wife because he loved her so deeply. This playroom, he
built for me. This is my Taj Mahal.
Fendi and Josh are also the heads of a household in which they formally mentor two other
couples, as well as many other trainees who seek their expertise and guidance. They refer to their
members blithely as their minions and more earnestly as their family of choice. Each couple
is monogamous, lives independently, and treats the other house members in a manner analogous
to extended family.
The researcher ascertained the following themes from the interview with this couple:
(a) Full integration of D/s lifestyle into relationship; (b) SM as serving an emotional function:
Exchange of vulnerability for control; (c) Attraction to structure and transparency of D/s; and (d)
Importance of attention and attunement. These issues are detailed below.
Full integration of D/s lifestyle into relationship. Both Josh and Fendi found their
relationship relatively easy from the start. Josh recalled, [i]t was a very smooth transition for her
to adapt to my style. It was basically seamless. I made my expectations and my limits pretty
clear and I never found a situation where there was friction.
Their D/s and partnership roles are indistinguishable. They run side by side, recounted
Fendi. If they were to remove D/s and SM from their marriage, [o]ur mindset and our dynamic
would not change.
101
Both embrace traditional gender roles, which complement their dynamic. As Fendi
indicated: I am a very strong believer in women forgot to be women, I think this is what fits so
well with his thought process. She celebrates feminine orthodoxy, and believes women are
natural service people . . . we are a naturally nurturing gender, a caring gender. And we let
that all go out the door, and I think until we come back and learn how to get that part of us
again that we will always feel in competition or we wont have the femininity, the softness,
the ability to step back and let your man shine because youre proud of him and you want
him to, and you dont have to be in the limelight.
Josh agrees. He was pleased to find a subculture where more traditional roles were accepted and
people did realize that . . . you didnt have to be a lawyer or wear a business suit and stuff to still
be a valuable woman.
SM as serving an emotional function: Exchange of vulnerability for control. Josh and
Fendi enjoy an exchange of specific emotional benefits from one another: Josh nurtures Fendis
inner child, and in exchange, Fendi gives Josh the control he seeks. Josh explained,
My relationship style is very much a caring and protecting and nurturing sort of style.
Thats what Im willing to deliver . . . In return for that protection and . . . my taking
responsibility, I expect and demand obedience and control.
He underscored his need for control: The key word is control. Thats where my comfort level is.
Thats my craziness.
Joshs control manifests, in part, as final arbiter. They have agreed that he makes all final
decisions. As such, the couple does not argue. Fendi furnishes her perspective on a matter and
trusts that he will render a decision that is mutually advantageous. Fendi elaborated,
We have not really disagreed. Weve had topics of discussion, but I trust the fact that
giving him enough information on a disagreement, on something we dont agree on, and
him allowing me to have my input, then I defer that final decision over to him. . . . I trust
that he will do whatever is in his power for the best of both of us.
Josh interprets Fendis submission in this way as evidence of her affection. [It] comes down to
trust and respect. Thats how I know Im loved. Thats how I feel that Im getting what I need in
102
a relationship.
Unlike Fendis previous high-protocol M/s relationships, which she said were devoid of
emotion, Fendi and Josh share a daddy-little girl relationship. In exchange for her submission,
Josh welcomes and nurtures her inner child, the part of her that is playful, silly, vulnerable, and
authentic. Coming into this relationship really gave me a chance to be who I was, she revealed.
She feels very safe in expressing her vulnerability with Josh. She explained, In a
daddy-little girl relationship I can come to him and bury my head in his shoulder and just sob
because I know his arms are around me and strong and he will take me in and protect me. She
can also let her little girl be fanciful. For example,
The one thing I remember is we were going on a cruise so I drew a horrible picture of this
ship and stick figures going up the plank and put it on the refrigerator (laughs), but I
wouldnt have done that as a slave.
Attraction to structure and transparency of D/s. Josh and Fendi favor the structure,
transparency and predictability of the D/s lifestyle. Fendi originally turned to it as an appealing
remedy for the disarray in her life (which she did not discuss). She recounted,
Ill tell you what attracted me. I found structure in the lifestyle, to my rather chaotic vanilla
life. So when my vanilla life was shattered in different parts and I couldnt pull things
together, the lifestyle provided me with structure and helped give me a different tool to use
to be able to handle things differently and to look at things differently.
Although she could have turned to other types of regimented environments, she preferred the SM
subculture because of its transparency, because there werent any hidden agendas. Everything is
up front and negotiated. You know ahead of time whats happening or what to expect.
D/s also furnished a relationship model that simplified the conjoining of these two
individuals. Josh observed,
We are very different in many ways, but our backgrounds in D/s and in the lifestyle gave
us a framework . . . a starting point . . . a model . . . We of course adapted it and adopted it
to be who we are. But the lifestyle definitely helped us stabilize our relationship because
103
right off the bat I was the dominant she was the submissive. Those were the expectations.
Use of rituals. The couple seemed to value periodic rituals, but did not express a reliance
on them. Josh remarked, We try to incorporate some rituals into our daily life. Maybe not
enough. But we try to incorporate some because it reinforces our awareness of our own
dynamic. While he is relaxed and casual about D/s protocol, he sought to incorporate certain
rituals to accommodate Fendi because of her strict background, to make her feel like shes in
the element where she is most comfortable.
According to Fendi, they limit their rituals to those they consider important, and they
practice them consistently:
Every morning I come to him and he puts my collar on. . . . If we are out with my parents
at a restaurant and I need to ask permission to eat, because I do it every day . . . I simply
put my hand on his knee, or he will look at me and do a little nod. So its nothing that they
would pick up but we are still keeping within the rituals that we do . . . We work at it, we
play at it. We are consistent.
Importance of attention and attunement. Both Fendi and Josh emphasized the
importance of the others attention. Fendi admittedly relishes the good girls that Josh often
confers. A bad day for her would be if he didnt pay any attention to me, didnt look at me,
didnt smile, didnt say good morning, girl.
Josh also delights in the attention Fendi provides. Fendi makes me feel very special all the
time, he boasted. She gives me a kind of attention that Im totally unused to and its very
exciting, very exciting, very refreshing, very satisfying.
They also described a sense of synchronicity that contributes to their closeness. Fendi
explained, Its amazing . . . Hell come in and say, You know I was just thinking of doing
this, and I will be going so was I. . . . I dont know how we do it. But we just have this little
communication going on a lot of time without really having to say too much of anything.
104
Couple 6: Tammy and Jason

Tammy and Jason have been together since 1981. They have been married for 30 years.
Both are, or have been employed in the sciences and regard themselves as highly rational people.
Their SM interest is primarily rope bondage. They entered the lifestyle almost five years ago.
They refer to their relationship as a modified 24/7, part D/s, part M/s dynamic, with him being
the Dominant and Master, and her the submissive and slave, although she is a switch with other
play partners.
Tammy and Jason view themselves as having multiple roles: First, they are equals as
husband wife; second, she is his pleasure slave (the M/s relationship); and third, she is his
submissive play partner (the D/s aspect). As he explained,
Shes a pleasure slave in that I own her body, sexually. I have the rights to use her body
sexually whenever I want, as long as she is in a high enough energy level (she suffers from
chronic fatigue syndrome), because I dont want to injure our relationship by doing
something thats not going to be pleasurable for her also.
Tammy is also a switch, and sexual sadist who plays with others as a top and engages in D/s
relationships with others as a Dom.
Both Jason and Tammy thought about SM in their youth. Jason had an interest in rope
bondage since he was a teenager, but did no explore it until Tammy suggested it. Tammy grew
up wrestling with her siblings and cousins. She recalled feeling sexually aroused during rough
physical play as a teenager.
Prior to their passage into SM, Tammys mother became quite ill and moved into a nursing
home, which put tremendous strain on Tammy. During that time, she found herself being drawn
to SM on her own through fictional literature, and felt both excited and guilty over this interest,
in spite of Tammy and Jasons admittedly sexually adventurous history. Researching the topic
on the internet, she learned of the neuro-psychological aspects of SM play, including various
105
biochemical effects that helped explain its allure.

Feeling relieved of internal dissension, Tammy showed Jason the data she discovered. He
responded enthusiastically, revealing his decades-long interest in rope. Tammy continued to
suffer the emotional and physical drain of caring for her ailing mother, and eventually jettisoned
the internal conflicts that had prevented her from further investigating her interest in SM. As she
explained,
I was so worn out that I didnt care anymore. . . . I have a bad hair day, I always wished
my eyebrows were a little higher or darker, or I wish I didnt have that dimple here. You
know those things that nag a woman, or I wish I was a little smarter or I could talk a little
bit better. All the sudden that dies when youre in a crisis and it continues like that for a
caregiver. You come out numb and all the sudden you look up and it has no more
meaning to you. And you start embracing what does, and all the artificial stuff goes away.
Tammy decided to purchase a basic bondage kit for her and Jason to play with on their
anniversary, which they enjoyed. They described this culmination of Tammys disinhibition and
couples first experimentation with bondage as a critical event in their relationship. Soon after,
they attended ShibariCon in Chicago, a four-day international rope convention where they took
rope bondage lessons all day and played in dungeons all night, relishing their newfound activity.
Tammy and Jason eventually found an SM community near their home. They have been
active members ever since. They attend play parties where they play both together and also with
others. During play with others, he plays the role of Dom using primarily rope, and she acts as
either sub or Dom in various capacities.
The couple also goes on dates, and explore intimate relationships with other members of
the kink community. However, they do not engage in sexual intercourse outside of their
marriage. They describe their relationship as stronger than ever at this time, and attribute their
increased security to the space they have given each other in connection with their SM journey.
Three themes emerged from the researchers interview with this couple: (a) Importance of
106
SM community; (b) Rope as a shared learned endeavor; and (c) Going outside the relationship to
satisfy emotional needs. They are discussed below.
Importance of SM community. Tammy and Jason find their local SM community to be
normalizing, open, and honest. After joining and forming relationships, Jason said he and
Tammy felt liberated, and more open to each other. From Tammys perspective, the
validation they received from the community provided the permission she needed to further
pursue SM interests with Jason:
Because all the things we thought were wrong arent wrong. And then we both got to the
point that we both started talking to each other about certain subjects, and when we found
out they werent wrong we discovered what we liked and didnt like and we could go
exploring. That was a lot of fun (laugh).
They also praised the transparency and acceptance of the community. Jason referred to it as
exceptionally giving, open, and sharing. He expounded,
[in] this community. . . nothing is hidden. Everybody knows everything about everybody
else and nobody cares. As long as you are decent human beings, and you have open and
honest communication, no one cares what you do as long as its consensual.
Tammy appreciates the sexuality and the freedom of not having to censor her words. She
also prefers the energy of SM culture to vanilla norms. She explained,
[with] vanilla people, you dont get the energy exchange with them . . . youre supposed
to stay apart, and within the kink community I have a set of friends and I can do this and be
naked and I feel good and wrestle around and its just like I can touch people again, and I
love it.
Rope as a shared learned endeavor. Tammy and Jason not only share an interest in SM,
but also a passion for rope bondage. Both of them recognize it as a technical pursuit and an art
that requires education and practice. Jason stated, Its not just something that you decide to do.
Its a skill. Its a developed skill.
Their mutual interest in this activity is a source of connection for the couple, as evidenced by
107
their repeated reference to their relationship with rope in the plural, rather than the singular.
J: Were in the rope bite . . . an international organization.
T: Wed like to . . . do a little traveling to meet the other people in the rope community.
J: We are . . . teaching . . . rope bondage.
Their shared passion for rope is further evinced by the term rope appearing 81 times during
their interview.
Rope as serving different functions for each partner. Tammy and Jason are attracted
to different aspects of SM play. However, both share the attraction to the intense physical
contact. Jason prefers rope to other implements because of the constant connection: When
youre using a flogger youre literally away from a person. Same with a cane or any impact
device. When youre using rope you literally have to be touching them all the time. Tammy
enjoys the tangling of bodies in anything reminiscent of her youthful wrestling days.
The couple described in detail the allure of being placed in rope bondage, which Tammy
labeled the rope fix. Both agreed that it creates a sense of security, like a swaddle. Its a
snuggly effect, Tammy offered, [like] when you wrap yourself in a blanket. James
expounded,
Its often described as a tight continuous hug. Literally, you are being held so you know
youre secure and you know you are cared for. Its not like, Im going to control you and
make you do what I want you to do. There is some of that but its being held, being
cared for, cradled, cuddled, swaddled - whatever you want to call it.
Tammy noted that being restrained by rope is not always enough to make her feel safe. She
needs to feel overpowered, and seeks it by challenging the top. In her words,
For me to really feel like Im in rope or in a bondage situation and I cant move, or I cant
do anything to feel that powerlessness, you have to actually challenge it and see if you can
get out or challenge the person thats trying to control you and if he can overpower me and
bring me down to that state that I cant do anything and he actually won. . . . I like to
compete. He won, and I lose, and I can settle down into the rope.
108
Jason is most excited by the ways in which he can communicate and exert control
through rope, predominantly in a nonverbal manner. It doesnt have to be painful. It is . . . the
act of applying the rope to the body and causing sensations and communicating through the rope.
Its a method of speaking without speaking. He is able to convey myriad messages through the
rope itself: I can portray sensual, sadistic - which Im not really big into passion . . . in how I
pull the rope, how I tension the rope, how I apply the rope, how I remove the rope even. Its all
one large conversation.
Whatever that conversation might entail, it is always positioned against the backdrop of
Jasons control: It starts when I pick up the rope . . . and it continues until . . . I release them
from my control. Unlike Tammy, who enjoys multiple SM activities and various roles, Jason is
specific: For me its the act of tying, taking control, manipulating and then releasing.
Going outside the relationship to satisfy emotional needs. Jason and Tammy each play
with other play partners and go on dates with others. They have sexual contact with these people,
but do not have intercourse with them. Tammy prefers to be a bottom, but is a switch and a
sexual sadist who enjoys topping men. In doing so, she forms relationships with these men, as
she explained,
I cant be a sexual sadist to someone I dont care for. I have to like the person because its
very personal and lets face it, Im not going to play with someones personal parts if I
dont like them so youve got to like them. The energy has to be right.
Tammy also goes on dates with other men, because [t]here are some things hes not going
to want to do and things I do want to do but not by myself. He has gone on a couple of dates as
well, but Tammy seems to do it more often because of Jasons demanding work schedule.
Tammy described what these dates might entail:
Movies, dinner, sometimes I go to another kink event that he cant make . . . in another
109
part of the state and I prefer to have an escort to go with me, and I just tell him what Im
going to do and I call him when we meet and when Im leaving and I just keep him
updated and I have a good time.
The couple referred to these events as dates because, they concurred Its an emotional
connection with a person that isnt based in sex . . . or age . . . or marriage. They rely on others
to supplement their needs because
He cant be 100% everything for me and I cant be 100% for him. Its just ridiculous.
Nobody can be that. Its too much responsibility. And I meet some people who are very
interesting and Id like to get to know them more, and just a connection. Its lovely.
In particular, when Jason is working long hours, he admits, I just cant pay the attention to her
that she needs.
Both of them insist that these extra-marital relationships are not a threat to their marriage
because We tell each other everything about it. I know who she is talking with, what they are
going to be doing. We set ground rules and we both abide by [them]. And with that there is no
threat.
Couple 7: Blake and Karina
Blake and Karina have been married for almost 30 years. They have been involved in SM
together for approximately the last five years. Both are in their 50s. He identifies as a switch, but
a 24/7 slave to Karina, and Karina identifies as his Mistress, although she does not seem to be
completely invested in this role. During the interview, he did most of the talking for the two of
them.
Blakes introduction to SM occurred when he was 24 years old, as a submissive to a former
fianc. He terminated that relationship and all SM activities after an experience that he
characterized as sexual abuse. He did not engage in SM again until he began his journey with
Karina.
110
Prior to their SM involvement, Blake and Karina were swingers for approximately 12
years, a lifestyle that Karina had initiated. During one swinger event that involved an SM
demonstration, Blake volunteered to be flogged by a professional dominatrix, which reignited his
interest in SM. As he described,
It stirred up some old emotions. And I met this woman again at the same party about a
month or so later and asked her to do it again but as a private session. And it was a longer
session. . . . I withstood some pretty good hits. At the end of the session she told me you
really need to find a Mistress.
Blake was unsure how Katrina would receive this idea. However, [w]e started talking a little bit
about it . . . Then there was another Mistress at another party and I had her flog me . . . Karina
was fine with it . . . That was when I kind of decided we really need to start looking.
Karina developed an interest in SM play when she witnessed a demonstration at an SM
event to which Blake brought her. She agreed to pursue an M/s relationship at Blakes suggestion
but was not comfortable with it at first. Blake sought guidance for the two of them from various
couples in the lifestyle, and ultimately found an experienced couple who became their mentors.
Although Blake considers himself Karinas slave, their roles are not completely clear. He
has become adept at fire play (using fire on the body in a non-injurious manner), and assumes the
role of a dominant in that arena, which can complicate and perhaps dilute their M/s dynamic.
Moreover, Blake suffers from fibromyalgia and degenerative arthritis in the spine. As a result, he
often has difficulty moving, and his medications cause short-term memory loss. Hence, his
condition can prohibit physical play and satisfaction of other demands, and he sometimes has
difficult recalling her instructions. Blake and Karina continue to negotiate their respective M/s
roles within their relationship and the SM community.
The researcher derived the following four themes from the interview with this couple:
(a) Seeking mentors to help adopt M/s lifestyle; (b) Different bases of attraction to SM;
111
(c) Going outside the relationship to satisfy unmet needs; and (d) Trust and commitment as
integral to success. These themes are discussed below.
Seeking of mentors to help adopt M/s lifestyle. Blake believed that he and Karina
required guidance in adopting an M/s lifestyle from experienced others. Since he had a clear idea
of the dynamic he wanted them to adopt and already had experienced it, his objective was
ostensibly to have others train Karina to be his Mistress. He found a Dom who agreed to assist
them. He recounted,
I finally kind of convinced Karina to go meet him . . . I said Id kind of like to get into this
and we talked to them and they were very open about the lifestyle and kind of tried to
figure out what Karina wanted. I already knew what I could do. We chose our roles at that
time and we started training. She kind of learned caning basics through him.
When that couple had a falling out, Blake and Karina sought out other Doms to assist them.
Karina wanted to continue and I definitely wanted to continue so we started searching
around for other dominants that would consider helping us because you cant just go into
this lifestyle basically on your own. You have to have somebody working with you.
Different bases of attraction to SM. Both Karina and Blake expressed a penchant for the
lifestyle, but for different reasons. Blake was more illustrative in his reasoning. He enjoys the
play, but seemed most attracted to the protocol, the formality, some of the structure. He
compared it to the rules of etiquette in the vanilla world, such as
Vanderbilts etiquette guides: You can see some of that in the BDSM world . . . In
public, Kathy will eat first, or I will usually try to serve her whenever possible. You know
its a gentlemen thing. Pulling a chair out for her. Thats in the vanilla world. We pick that
up in the lifestyle. Protocol: You never touch another person without permission . . . I
guess youd say a little more structure in the BDSM than the vanilla world.
When queried about what attracts Karina to SM, Blake answered for her:
B: She likes the control part of it.
K: Um hm.
Going outside the relationship to satisfy unmet needs. Blakes preferences and
112
physiological limitations render it difficult for Karina to engage in certain SM activities that she
enjoys, such as cock and ball torture (CBT). Karina finds other submissives to dominate and
torture with SM play like CBT. Blake explained, There are a lot of men that love that stuff so
she found that nicheshe likes doing that and thats fine.
Likewise, Blake also likes to switch and engages other play partners to be submissives. He
emphasized that these SM trysts do not threaten their relationship. They established boundaries
that worked for them in the swinging world, and aptly applied them to the SM subculture. Blake
reasoned,
We each have different play partners because there were things she liked to do I didnt like.
. . . We had already been in a swinging relationship, and we had already set boundaries.
Those boundaries worked again. She had her submissive and I had mine.
Trust and commitment as integral to success. Karina and Blake believe that their mutual
trust and commitment to their relationship has contributed to their success in adopting their M/s
lifestyle. Blake stressed, If you dont have trust when youre in this lifestyle (intimating
disaster). . . Its brought us closer in that we trust each other.
They draw on their apparently successful swinging history in maintaining their bond:
K: When we went in the swinging lifestyle before the BDSM we had these rules. And then
we went into the BDSM lifestyle and we still have these rules.
B: And because of our bond we dont break them.
Couple 8: John and Cindy
John and Cindy are in their late 40s and have been married 26 years. They started dating
when they were each 19 years old, and experience their relationship as a uniquely strong marital
friendship. Cindy described: We started as friends. We still have that base friendship and we are
so amazed today that we can continue that friendship. And if the marriage never happened we
would still be really good friends . . . Hes my best friend.
113
They share an equal marital partnership on a day-to-day basis, and only assume SM roles
in play settings. Thus, they consider their relationship SM but not D/s. As John explained,
From the inside we dont really have D/s between us. We have SM, so were there for the
actual sensation, the experience, the activity, and were on that ride together and
experiencing it together but its not a D/s thing.
Inside the SM community he identifies as a Dominant and she identifies as a submissive to him
and others, but also a switch, in that she enjoys topping other play partners.
John and Cindy have been involved in the lifestyle for approximately 15 years. They
entered it together, beginning with internet sources consisting of predominantly online role
playing. There were very few organized SM outlets where they lived at that time. However, they
later moved and found an SM community in their new location, which launched their journey
into the SM milieu. John recollected their path:
[In the beginning] we were experimenting with the Master-slave online dynamic, and we
also played in these Gore chat rooms that were almost fantasy scenarios where you are a
different person from a different world with different conventions and rules and different
animals, and it was as much a creative outlet I think as it was a lifestyle . . . almost like
being in a video game. . . . And a lot of people we knew would try to take that into reality
to some extent . . . But when we moved down here we sort of pushed that aside and tried
to take more of a pragmatic approach as what people really do when they live their lives
with kink and with BDSM.
During the early stages of their exploration of kink on the internet, and prior to their
relocation, they described an event they both considered critical: When Cindy told John she
wanted him to whip her for the first time. At that point he had never struck anyone. John
reported, She came to me out of the blue . . . sort of unheralded and you know said Would you
be willing to whip me? And I was like, What do you, What? Wait. What?
She remembered that John had a whip from years past in the garage. She recalled her
thought process: You know how some people romanticize wanting to surrender? . . . They get
this romantic vision in their head and they see it perfectly. And what I got was that romantic
114
vision of him whipping me.

John recalled agonizing about it for half an hour:
Because one of the most difficult things about entering this in the physical realm is the
sort of mental disconnect, or the disharmony with what youre doing and what you think
you should be doing. . . . Is this how a person should be behaving? Am I sane? Am I .
. . crazy? Is this right? Can I reconcile this with myself afterwards?
He finally agreed to whip her, provided she kept her pants on, because he feared I dont want us
to be at the emergency room . . . trying to explain this while Im still trying to reconcile [it].
They went into the backyard. It was a long whip and they needed room. Cindy said,
I put my hands up against this tree, stuck my butt out and I figured this was going to be
easy. . . . The first shot - WHACK - right on my right butt cheek. I went down on my
knees. I was like. Oh my god it hurt so bad! And he came up to me and said, Are you
alright? Are you alright? I said I had to go sit down, so we went and sat on the couch and
we both just sat therelike in silence.
Cindy laughed as she reminisced:
And then I thought, Ive gotta see this - Ive gotta see the mark. So I pulled down my
pants and there was this huge red welt this big on my butt [showing about six inches]. And
I said . . . I really have to think about this. That hurt!. . . I thought it was supposed to be
romantic, and it hurt!
According to John, that really kind of opened the floodgates for our continued
experimentation.
After the couple moved, they became fully entrenched in their large local SM
community. Yet it took them a couple of years to determine how they would operate within the
subculture. In their efforts to fit in, they found themselves trying to conform to other peoples
definitions and expectations:
We kind of got off the path of what brought us here to begin with because . . . People
say, This is what a slave is, this is what a Dom is, this is what a submissive is . . . and if
youre going to be successful you need to conform to my definition.
John continued,
115
Because we admired them on some level, or didnt know any better, we started to mold
ourselves after what a lot of people kind of pronounced or put out as being the ultimate
way of being and we got really kind of lost and we found ourselves doing things in a
certain way that became very stale and very routine and mundane and we would go home
after an evening of play and we would say, What are we doing?
They ultimately chose to ignore others prescriptions in favor of their own intuitive sense of
direction. According to John,
We reached a point where we said, You know what? Who cares? Lets chip away the
labels. Lets chip away the expectations that people have and we are just going to be
organic with one another. We are going to go out and play, we are going to do what we
feel like doing and we are not going to worry so much about what other people think or
say.
They continued down their own path, learning as much as they could and becoming
skilled at various implements. Yet they found they had digressed in another way: They,
particularly John, believed he had become preoccupied with specific techniques. He felt he had
become too mechanistic in his play, superimposing his preferred skills on play partners rather
than catering to his partners interests.
Cindy also described this period as one in which they had been playing predominantly
with others to enhance their skills. However, they enjoyed feeling successful with others so much
that they had been drifting apart from one another. Being exceptionally self-aware, the couple
was able to identify this dynamic and redirect themselves onto a healthier trajectory. They
alluded to having done this multiple times during their exploration: Getting seduced by the
excitement of some aspect of SM, recognizing the danger, and retreating back toward one
another to regain balance as a couple.
John and Cindy are deeply entrenched in the lifestyle, and consider it a serious pursuit.
Cindy noted, I sometimes call it our hobby but its much more serious emotionally than a
hobby. Most of their friends are in the lifestyle, and they remain involved multiple ways in
116
addition to their frequent dungeon play, including his participation in an SM mens group and
her continual search for new ways to explore and expand their interests. The couple describes
SM as a constant presence in their lives. Even when were not physically here [at the dungeon] .
. . . We still stay connected, recounted John. We know what our friends are doing. We know
who is going to what event . . . Its on our mind.
The researcher abstracted the following themes from her interview with this couple:
(a) Recognizing and questioning the perils of the lifestyle; (b) Setting boundaries (creating rules,
engaging in constant conversation, checking each other and taking breaks; and (c) Playing with
each other versus playing with others. These issues are addressed below.
Recognizing and questioning the perils of the lifestyle. John and Cindy entered the
lifestyle with gusto. Eager to experience everything it had to offer, the couple admitted they did
a lot of things that in retrospect were probably premature and not the best choices. They
frequently referred to the hazards they encountered, particularly the intoxicating and addicting
draw of SM, which they attempt to manage by setting and maintaining certain boundaries.
Both Cindy and John prefer public play because of the group energy and sexual
exhibitionism. John finds the whole atmosphere of BDSM . . . very intoxicating. He described
it as a constant undercurrent of eroticism if not sexuality that holds an allure that vanilla sex,
even pornography, seems to lack.
Cindy described falling in love with SM play, feeling almost insatiable, and getting
high on it:
Kink is all about, sexuality . . . all about me, and my body and how it reacts: Me, me,
mine, mine. I want it all. . . It can be here, it can be here (pointing to different places on
her body) it can be on my fingertips, but I want something out of it, and when I start
screaming, once I get past . . . that threshold to where, Oh it doesnt hurt anymore. . .
it feels so good. . . . Its that high.
117
The couple talked of succumbing to their desire to experience increasingly higher

plateaus of power and ecstasy in their SM play. Likening it to an addiction, Cindy described
becoming obsessed with the psychophysiological stimulation of SM play:
It will consume you . . . Its very addicting . . . when you get into a scene . . . you just want
to keep on doing it . . . You dont realize it but youre getting off . . . and the endorphins
are releasing and youre getting high, so what happens is if you can find that each and
every time . . . it doesnt matter who youre with because youre addicted.
They referred to a pattern of finding the boundaries by crossing or coming perilously close
to them, as John illustrated:
Ive had many scenes, some with her, some with other people that have been really
intense, where Im . . . bruising the person. . . . Im leaving cuts and marks and theres
screams and yells and tears and all sorts of things, and outside of this community, outside
of that very specific consensual interaction, that would be a horrific thing, right?
Scenes like these rouse him to rigorously self-reflect, which has often led him to question various
aspects of the lifestyle:
So you go home and you look at the activity, just, mechanically, and youre like holy shit
right? What did I just do? Was it ok? Did I have the right to do that? And was there
manipulation involved? Did I coerce this other person at all into allowing me to do this?
Was there some ulterior motive at work? Were they in their right mind when they asked for
this?
As a couple, they have struggled to balance persistent temptation with comfort and wellbeing. In the past, when they noticed that their relationship was imperiled, they stopped and took
inventory of themselves and their bond. Cindy illustrated,
There were some bleak areas that we went through because of those dynamics: M/s, D/s,
Oh goodness! You start to question your basic relationship. You know, whatever
happened to the boyfriend girlfriend, whatever happened to the romance, now were in
this sadomasochistic relationship.
So we had to come back home and say wait, wait, wait, wait. We are abusing this now.
We are addicted to this. We have got to come back home and establish some sort of
standard so we dont go too far because you sort of lose your emotional self. You start to
really fall in love with things you never . . . Be careful. Be careful here.
118
Setting boundaries. Both Cindy and John acknowledged marinating in temptation and
struggling to find ways to inoculate their relationship from its potential hazards. John defined
this conflict as their biggest challenge: . . . balancing how to fulfill each other or ourselves with
our interest and maintain the comfort and connection and trust with each other. Much of their
discussion centered on the ways in which they established these boundaries. They identified the
use of rules, frequent conversation, checking one another and taking breaks as methods of setting
and maintaining these parameters.
Creating rules. Cindy and John have adopted certain rules. They consider themselves
polysceners, in that they play with others and permit sexual contact with them. However, they
do not have sexual intercourse with others or allow themselves to become emotionally involved
with them. This emotional boundary was admittedly difficult to define, although Cindy
attempted: If theres a penis entering me or if I have an emotional penis then I go no, no, no. I
cant do that. John further elucidated,
It is not as black and white from a mechanical standpoint. Its more of a level of comfort. .
. . And so, something that might be OK for me to do in terms of an activity with one person
wouldnt necessarily be OK for me to do with another person, because of the level of
concern that it would create within our relationship would be different.
Constant conversation. According to John, We have the conversation a lot about where
our limits and boundaries are. Cindy was clear about the perils of not discussing their individual
desires: If you dont talk about it, it starts to stir. They find that discussing what they would
like to do in a scene with others can have a desensitizing effect on each of them, and thus, a
protective function in their relationship:
That value of being straight out I think helps us with our monogamy because we have both
done sexual things in the context of a scene where weve talked about it beforehand and we
know whats going to happen and it ends up not being a big deal.
John also believes that the freedom they allow one another to reveal their fantasies and
119
discuss how they might enact them in a scene with others reduces the temptation to stray:
Because we know if we wanted to do that we could talk about it and we could bring it into
action, he offered. Thats one of the things that keeps us from just saying I want to go fuck this
person, because we can do so many other things.
Cindy was adamant about talking about anything that might be a threat to their monogamy.
We always check in. . . . Do you want to have sex? Lets put it on the table. Do you want to
have sex with someone else? She insists on knowing all of Johns desires, but she is also
terrified of what she might hear. She relayed, I will not let a day go by without telling him, Tell
me what you want. Dont be afraid. Have no fear. [But] Im scared to death to talk about it.
Checking each other. Another way the couple works to maintain boundaries is by
checking one another and granting the other person veto power:
Its . . . a constant check and balance that we have with each other as we are doing these
things and trying to be as open as possible about what we are doing and also our intentions
about why we are doing it and what it means.
In their view, ego is the worst and most common phenomena in SM, in that it causes
people to make poor choices. John expounded:
When someone else is interested in you, whether its professionally or personally . . . it
inflates your ego and you go, Wow, this person thinks Im really cool! She [Cindy]
doesnt always think Im so cool because she knows that Im also a dork. I also do stupid
things. . . . That other person doesnt know those things about me yet.
Cindy and John monitor each other for evidence of capitulation to the ego. For instance, when
an unknown attractive woman asks John to play with her, his first (ego-driven) inclination may
be a resounding Yes! However, he acknowledged,
Having the level of experience that I have, its not right for me to take advantage of people
in that way. . . [and Cindy might say] Oh, come on now, and Id be like Yeah, OK, OK.
So that is a way that we sometimes help each other. Because I wouldnt feel good about
myself afterward, and she knows that, and she wouldnt feel very good about me afterward.
120
Although rarely used, John and Cindy also grant each other the right to veto anyone with
whom the other interacts if he or she feels uncomfortable with that person. They also verbally
check one anothers intentions they suspect the other is angry and using a scene to inspire
jealousy. Cindy offered, So when I see . . . maybe his intention is a little bent . . . the old tit for
tat kind of stuff . . . Ill call it out on him: Dont hug her an extra half an hour because youre
mad at me.
Taking breaks. Finally, John and Cindy spoke of a fluctuating sense of security as a
couple within the relationship, which they would sometimes manage by taking a break. Cindy
divulged thinking about taking a break all the time. John reported, We have periods of greater
security and period of less security where we kind of pull back and we dont interact with other
people for a period of time because we are just not comfortable.
Playing with each other versus playing with others. Cindy and John emphasized the
differences between playing with one another and playing with others. Because they are equal
partners in life, their SM relationship is generally limited to physical play. It is difficult for them
to engage in a D/s dynamic even temporarily because it requires so much feigning of a power
differential that is not present. John explained, When we are trying to portray ourselves as an
authority figure within the lifestyle, its a lot more successful with another person because [they]
dont have any preconceived notions. He expounded,
There are certain things that no matter how convincing I think I am, she will never take me
seriously . . . I cant intimidate her . . . [For example] if Im doing an interrogation, like
Youve got to tell me this, she would just like laugh at me. Shed be like Oh yeah, right.
However, their scenes together often involve more sexuality, playfulness, rough housing,
screaming, crying and laughing than with others. During those scenes, we connect, said John.
We are both really flying. We are both really fulfilled. We are on sort of spiritual plane that is
121
different than how we normally are in the home . . . We both are freed by that experience.
Cindy said of John, He just lets me fly. I mean . . . I am thankful that he just lets me fly and then
keeps me back - Im not safe all the time, I mean I do some crazy things. She exemplified her
experience of their connection through the following vignette:
I dont think I would do those types of [emotionally risky] scenes without you there. Id go
to him [in the middle of the scene], Theres something in my eye. Somethings wrong,
somethings wrong, and hed say Youre fine. You know that voice, my best friend
going, Im here, were cool, were good, dont worry, well work through this. Do you
want to come out of the pool? No. . . . So his voice, just that, that dynamic, I dont know
what youd call it. See, its something that to me is so magical.
Common Themes
The researcher identified six common themes that capture the foci of the foregoing
findings:
1.
Heterogeneity among relationships, on a continuum from egalitarian partnerships

incorporating SM play, to 24/7 D/s relationships.
2.
Role of pain in physical play as tailored to the bottoms preferences and generally just
enough to stimulate pleasure.
3.
Emotional function of SM as a predominant motivation for entering the lifestyle, and

generally related to the containment of anger.
4.
Attraction to structure and rituals to maintain a sense of internal order and provide
comforting reminders of a partners presence.
5.
Importance of SM community for authentic expression, SM education and association

with like-minded others.
6.
Concern over boundaries regarding the permissibility of sexual contact with others, and
the emotional repercussions of extra-relationship encounters.
122
Heterogeneity among relationships. The participants enjoy different styles of SM

relationships. Three of the couples share egalitarian relationships and limit their SM involvement
to play. Angela and Geoff, Sam and Jen, and John and Cindy all specifically referred to being
equal partners, and using SM play together for a limited purpose. John explained this dynamic:
We have SM, so were there for the actual sensation, the experience, the activity, and were on
that ride together and experiencing it together but its not a D/s thing.
In contrast, four of the couples described their relationships as 24/7 D/s. Both Blake and
Sabrina and Fendi and Josh referred to using traditional gender roles, and a 1950s style marriage
as a model for their D/s dynamic, although Fendi and Josh also referred to incorporating a
daddy-little girl aspect as well.
Diane and Reggie negotiated their D/s dynamic for five years before arriving at a
scenario that met both of their needs. They consider themselves equals with a mutually desirable
power exchange. Diane was very clear: If he didnt treat me well, then you can be damn sure
Im not making his coffee in the morning. At the time of the interview, Blake and Karina, who
also sought a 24/7 M/s dynamic, were still in the process of establishing their relationship
configuration.
One couple referred to a hybrid relationship. Tammy and Jason view themselves as
equals but switch to an M/s hierarchy on the weekends. Tammy explained,
My viewpoint is we are married first. We didnt get into this life until four, four and a
half years ago so our marriage comes first. We are husband and wife. There is just no
way around that. It just all the sudden cant be the submissive or slave to him. That is
never going be first. So for us its usually on weekends and Ill call him Master because
he owns me.
Role of pain in physical play. None of the participants expressed a liking for intense
pain. Three of the couples discussed the pleasurable physical sensations they sought through SM
123
play: The rope people, Sam and Jen and Tammy and Jason, both talked of the delightful
snugness of being bound in rope. Diane likes just enough pain to produce a massage effect,
and enjoys Reggies style of sensation play. Sam likes the pain of Jen flogging him, but only
when she rubs her hand over his back, revealing, If it wasnt for [that]. . . it would become too
much.
Angela and Sabrina both implied enjoying some pain in their play, but within limits.
Angela and Geoff are particularly careful in making sure everyone is always OK. Sabrina
specifically said she is not a masochist, and forbade Barry from using his paddles on her because
of the pain they inflicted.
Two of the Dominants enjoyed administering more pain than their partner could withstand.
According to Barry, Sabrina, cant take the level of beating that I would like to be able to give.
Katrina also likes administering more pain than Blake can tolerate due to his medical conditions.
Tammy called herself a sexual sadist with the men she topped outside of her marriage, but did
not expound.
Neither Fendi and Josh nor John and Cindy discussed the role of pain in their dynamic.
Emotional function of SM. Six of the couples referred to the lifestyle as a mechanism
for satisfying particular emotional needs of one or both of them. Angela and Geoff, and Barry
and Sabrina, and Diane and Reggie all referenced using SM to diminish anger. Geoff identified
the feeling of being respected in the lifestyle and playing the dominant role as contributing to his
reduced anger. As a result, he said no longer experiences overwhelming rage.
Barry and Sabrina agreed that the paddles he used during play assuaged the anger she had
been carrying around for days. She admitted, I was able to get all my emotions out that night.
124
Similarly, Reggie said Diane warns him in advance that she is having a bad day and needs
some relief through physical play, which he provides when she arrives. They also use the
power structure they have created to help Diane contain her anger: Reggie can immediately tell if
she is angry, and he helps quells her emotional storm by reminding her that he is in charge. In
contrast, Sam and Jen talked of using SM to build trust and resilience. Sam summarized, The
fact of bondage itself is a trust thing. They have also found that the stress of bondage increases
their resiliency in ordinary life.
Fendi and Josh discussed other emotional needs. In their specific kind of the D/s dynamic
Fendi feels safe: I feel very safe in my daddy-little girl I can come to him. Reciprocally, Josh
feels loved through Fendis obedience. Sabrina also referenced feeling safe under the cover of
Barrys authority.
Attraction to SM structure, rituals, or symbols. Six of the eight couples were attracted
to an aspect of SM structure or rituals. Two of them referred specifically to structure: Blake was
drawn to the D/s protocols, likening them to vanilla rules of etiquette. Fendi turned to the
lifestyle expressly to bring structure to her chaotic vanilla life. She incorporates Asian-style
D/s protocol and rituals in her relationship with Josh and teaches them to her mentees.
Diane and Reggie were the most enthusiastic about the significance of rituals. They
incorporate regular protocols throughout their day. The rituals are a vehicle through which
Reggie provides Diane with the attention she needs: From texting her a left eye wink to let her
know Im still watching, said Reggie, to fastening her cuffs every night. The consistency of
these activities is vital to the stability of their relationship.
The strictly SM couples did not incorporate D/s-style structure in their relationships.
However, two of them valued certain SM rituals. Angela and Geoff emphasized the ritual of
125
having scheduled play. They realized during the interview the various positive effects it had on
their relationship, and decided to find ways to reincorporate it. Sam and Jen focused more on
symbolism than on rituals, but combined both in their practice of her locking the lock on his
collar whenever he left town for work.
Barry and Sabrina did not espouse structure as a value and specifically stated, We don't
really have any rituals. However, rituals are integrated into their strictly defined roles, such as
Sabrinas delegated domestic responsibilities. Neither Tammy and Jason nor Cindy and John
mentioned an attraction to SM structure or rituals during their interviews.
Importance of SM community. Except for Sam and Jen, all of the couples were
involved in their local SM community and espoused the importance of it. They emphasized three
reasons for their interest: (a) The SM community invites people to be themselves, (b) They learn
about the lifestyle from one another, and (c) They socially gravitate toward other people who
practice SM.
Three couples described the SM community as a non-judgmental environment where
people freely reveal themselves. Tammy explained of her and Jasons community, They accept
what we do and we accept what they do without judgment. Sabrina called them the nicest,
most honest people. Diane said they are attracted to the acceptance and openness of their SM
community.
Most of the couples referred to the community as an invaluable educational resource.
Blake immediately sought mentors from the community when he and Katrina decided to pursue
an SM course because he viewed the lifestyle as a path requiring help from others. Angela and
Geoff relied on the monthly parties and workshops by the owner of the party house to learn
new techniques. When John and Cindy moved, they delved into their local community for
126
guidance, perhaps too much so, as they became overwhelmed by the information and advice they
received.
The majority of the couples socialize predominantly with others who engage in SM. In
addition to providing a pool of possible play partners, the community is a source of friendship
and belonging. Cindy and Sabrina both characterized virtually all of their friends as in the
lifestyle. Their husbands are also extremely socially engaged. Both of them are active in SM
mens groups, as well as their general SM community. Fendi and Josh are steeped in
relationships with SMers: They lead the local SM community and hold meetings, events and play
parties in that capacity, and they are the heads of an SM household where they mentor others.
Tammy and Jason also socialize with many SMers. They frequent the local munches,
(gathering[s] of SM people, usually in a restaurant, for the purpose of socialization and chat
(Wiseman, 1998, p. 373)), and they go on dates with others in the kink community. In addition,
Angela and Geoff mentioned the valued friendships they made and have retained from the play
parties in their community.
Concern over boundaries. Seven of the eight couples referred to relationship boundaries
in the context of SM. All of the couples defined monogamy as at least not engaging in
intercourse with others. However, questions arose regarding how much sexual contact was
permitted with others, and with whom, as well as how to navigate the emotional repercussions of
these extra-relationship encounters.
Both Sam and Jen and Angela and Geoff had established firm boundaries. Sam and Jen
seemed the most resolute. They were in exact agreement and did not need to rely on rules to
maintain the boundaries of their union. They only play at home, and refuse to partake in any
dungeon activity because they are disturbed by the humiliation element of SM play. When they
127
attend other lifestyle-type events, they wear their collars with linking fabric or other symbols to
patently exhibit their taken status and to ward off others.
Angela and Geoff also agreed on the confines of their monogamy. She did not expose her
breasts or genitals. They limited their play with others to a select few, and to non-sexual activity.
Geoff did not mention playing with others.
Notwithstanding their firm boundaries, Angela and Geoff referred to the possibility of
including a female friend in their sexual relationship. According to Angela, they would have to
thoroughly discuss the matter before proceeding. However, she revealed that they have
a female friend we both kind of think is really cute, and Im mostly straight but I think
shes kind of cute so weve joked about what would it be like, to . . . fool around with
her, but its only gone to the teasing stage. Its not like anything has actually happened.
Tammy and Jason and Blake and Karina have looser boundaries. However, they have
agreed to rules which they feel bring stability to their relationship. Both Tammy and Jason play
sexually with others and actually date other people. But they have certain rules, including open
communication of everything that goes on. In addition, they agree that Jason sets the rules of
engagement with respect to her dating relationships and play partners. These rules seem to work
for this couple, who claim that they have grown closer since they began to operate in this way.
Similarly, Blake and Karina also maintain loose boundaries regarding playing and having
sexual contact with others. This couple used to swing years ago. They referred to having trusted
each other with agreed-upon rules then, and successfully applying those rules to their SM
activities now.
Barry and Sabrina and John and Cindy referred to having a more flexible approach to
boundaries and rules. In some ways, these couples seem to be experimenting with the rules as
they go, while acknowledging the dangers. Barry and Sabrina generally only played with one
128
another during their relationship and have been conventionally monogamous. However, they are
now seeking a second submissive woman to play with together. Sabrina was adamant that there
would definitely [be] no sex in this relationship. However, Barry was not as resolved about
this rule when he replied, Theres a common saying in BDSM, What were once limits are now
desires. So who knows where it could go.
John and Cindy were the most forthright and self-reflective regarding their struggle to
maximize their SM experiences yet protect the sanctity of their marriage. It is their biggest
challenge. In their frequent and often sexually-charged play with others, they expressed concern
over one of them becoming infatuated with another person. Because hard and fast rules do not
protect against such perils, they have a system of constant communication and watching over one
another that has worked for them.
Finally, Diane and Reggie implied that they did not engage in any sexually threatening
play with others. However, as a result of their policy of full disclosure, Reggie admitted to
wanting to incorporate a second woman. Although he clarified it would not be for sex, Diane
struggles with the idea of expanding their boundaries to include another woman in any
capacity. The couple had not fully negotiated this issue at the time of the interview. Fendi and
Josh did not broach the topic of boundaries in their interview.
Summary
This chapter presented thematic, discursive, and critical events analysis of eight couples.
Six common themes were procured from the examination of the data. Perhaps as a reflection of
the researchers own predilection, thematic analysis dominated the exposition, with critical
events and discursive analyses supplementing and reinforcing the themes in the manner
described below.
129
A single critical event was identified in five of the eight interviews. One critical event
occurred during the interview itself, when Angela and Geoff recognized their mutual desire to
engage in scheduled SM play. Two critical events involved the couples first experimentation
with SM: Cindy persuading John to whip her in the backyard, and Tammy coming home to Jason
with a store-bought bondage kit. The remaining two critical events embodied the defining
emotional issue of the couples relationship: Diane giving Reggie the ultimatum to finally
become the Dom she needed, and Sam and Jens immediate affective connection over the rope in
his pocket.
Discursive elements were limited to the researchers identification of single words that
recurred during the interview. The researcher identified such conspicuous word usage in five of
the interviews. In each instance, the prominent words corresponded to a significant theme of the
relationship. For instance, Angela and Geoff were adamant about the egalitarian nature of their
relationship and the limited role of SM as a form of play. The repeated words play and fun
supported the salience of this theme. In a similar vein, the prominence of the words rope and
trust during Sam and Jens interview coincided with the intensity of their shared interest in
Shibari and the various ways that SM enhanced their mutual trust. Likewise, the frequency of the
word need in Diane and Reggies interview was consistent with the pervasive theme of SM as
a mechanism for the fulfillment of emotional needs.
The accounts and thematic evaluations provide insight into the research question What
is the experience of being in a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship that regularly
incorporates SM? The following chapter juxtaposes the results of this study to research
referenced in the literature review, as well as other literature the researcher found to be valuable
130
in interpreting the findings. It also includes limitations and applications of this study and future
research suggestions.
131
Chapter V
Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter begins with a synopsis of the previous four chapters. It then compares various
themes of interest revealed through this study to the research set forth in the literature review and
other literature the researcher found to be relevant following analysis of the data. Next, it
discusses limitations of the research, followed by recommendations for future research and
implications of applications of the study.
Overview of Study
This study researched the experience of eight heterosexual couples who share long-term
monogamous relationships that regularly incorporate SM. Chapter I presented the social and
clinical relevance of studying people who engage in SM, highlighting the latent prevalence of
SM in American culture. The research question and pertinent definitions were also included.
Chapter II contained a review of the literature. The literature review opened with a
discussion of the historical underpinnings of SM, followed by the controversial confusion of
sexual sadism and masochism, which are consensual practices, with paraphilias, which were
identified by DSM versions prior to DSM -5 (e.g. DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric
Association, 2000), as nonconsensual. A discussion of Freuds account of these phenomena
followed. Next, demographic studies were presented, which generally reflect a population that is
predominantly mentally healthy, well-functioning and educated (e.g., Krueger, 2010).
The appropriate characterization of SM was also a prominent theme with varying
interpretations. It has been called, among other things, a simple sexual interest (Richters, et al.,
2008), a sexual orientation (Moser,1999) a cultural phenomenon (e.g., Weinberg, 1979), and an
intense recreational practice (Baumeister, 1988). SM practitioners have described SM using
132
terms such as consensuality, power imbalance and sexual stimulation, as well as fun, pleasure
and transcendence (Taylor & Ussher, 2001).
Modern psychodynamic perspectives were also explored, which tend to relate any SM
practice to early relational trauma. Finally, interpersonal aspects of SM were discussed in terms
of cognitive and interpersonal theories. The chapter concluded with criticisms of the literature,
such as small sample size (Taylor & Ussher, 2001) and unvalidated conclusions (Moser, 1999).
Chapter III presented the qualitative methods and procedures used for this research. It
explained the researchers preference for the narrative model, and also described the two
variations of the model selected for this study: thematic and critical events analysis. Selection
criteria for participation in the study were also included.
Chapter IV contained the findings of the study. Each of the eight couples was introduced
by a chronological narrative constructed by the researcher to the extent of the data gathered. The
chronology was followed by an analysis of themes extracted from the data. Critical events and
prominent discursive elements were incorporated where relevant. Thematic analysis dominated
the exposition, with critical events and discursive analyses augmenting the themes. Six common
themes were then considered: (a) Heterogeneity among relationships, on a continuum from
egalitarian partnerships incorporating SM play, to 24/7 D/s; (b) The role of pain in physical play,
as tailored to the bottoms preferences and generally just enough to stimulate pleasure; (c) The
emotional function of SM as a predominant motivation for entering the lifestyle, and generally
related to the containment of anger; (d) Attraction to SM structure and rituals to maintain a sense
of internal order and provide comforting reminders of a partners presence; (e) The importance
of the SM community for authentic expression, SM education and association with like-minded
133
others; and (f) Concern over boundaries regarding the permissibility of sexual contact with
others, and the emotional repercussions of extra-relationship encounters.
Comparison of Research Findings to the Literature
The findings of this study of couples in long-term, monogamous, heterosexual SM
relationships underscore various issues presented in the literature, including material outside the
literature review, which became salient to the project upon analysis of the data. The first of these
issues, which are discussed in detail below, is the nature of pain in SM. This topic addresses the
correspondence between pain and pleasure, as posited by Freud (1905, 1915, 1924), the
neurobiological pain-pleasure connection, Novick and Novicks (1996) theory of an unconscious
need for pain originating in the infant-caregiver relationship, and other alternative ideas
regarding the role of pain in SM (e.g., Weinberg, 1995).
The second issue is the question of whether, based on Winnicotts (1952/2005) analysis,
SM is a form of creative play or a more defensive transitional phenomenon through which
individuals deny separation of their internal experience from the external world. The third issue
regards the extent to which SM may be a reaction to trauma, an attempt to contain difficult
affects, and/or a mechanism for trauma recovery. This analysis relies on Levines (2010) theory
of tonic immobility. The fourth issue is the relationship between SM and repetition compulsion.
Finally, the relationship of SM to intimacy and closeness are discussed.
The nature of pain in SM. The role of pain in SM is a controversial topic. This is
evidenced by the litany of expositions that attempt to explain it (e.g., Weinberg, 1995; Barker, et
al., 2007; Newmahr, 2010). Perhaps because the experiences of pain and pleasure are so
subjective, the literature on this subject is quite speculative.
Pain and pleasure as described by Freud. Freud (1905, 1915, 1924) frequently revised
134
his own views of sadism and masochism, but never lost his appreciation for enigmatic pleasurepain dynamic. Every pain contains in itself the possibility of . . . pleasure, he declared (1905,
p. 159). He also identified the skin as the foremost conductor of such stimulus, as evidenced by
the common childhood experience of becoming sexually aroused during wrestling-type play.
This complex and intimate connection was revealed by several participants. Cindy
described crossing the threshold from pain to pleasure, just when it feels so good. Diane
likened it to a massage.
As Freud discussed, the participants described their SM play as predominantly skinrelated: flogging and other impact play, rope bondage, fire play and sensation play using soft
fabrics and dull knives. Tammy specifically recalled wrestling with other kids as an adolescent,
which sparked her interest in SM.
Freud (1915) further opined that sadism and masochism stem from the ubiquitous
libidinization of all intense affect, even fear and pain, especially when it is toned down or kept
at a distance by some accompanying condition (p. 204). Based on the symptoms of trauma in
virtually all of the participants (discussed below), it is likely that most of them experience intense
emotion or attempt to defend against it. Each of George and Sabrina (within their specifically
referred to feeling anger that they were unable to verbalize. Diane referred to those in the
lifestyle as generally more intense than their vanilla counterparts.
As Freud (1915) suggested, the participants also described many potential conditions
during their play that could serve to distance the participants from emotional discomfort and
enhance the pleasurable effects. These include feelings of attunement and connection to ones
partner, of which there were numerous examples: Angela and Geoff explained that SM play is
exciting only when both partners are feeling good. Cindy referred to Johns comforting voice
135
when she felt distressed during a scene as magic. Also, the participants referred to sexual
contact during scenes, or the promise of sex afterward, which would add a patent eroticism to the
experience. Finally, public play, of which seven of the eight couples partake, incorporates a
certain erotic energy, which John called intoxicating, and others also relish.
Freud also considered sadism and masochism to be two manifestations of a single
phenomenon, although he vacillated as to the sequence of development (1905, 1915, 1924). Two
findings from the data seem to support his view. First, as Freud suggested, the participants
described the tops pleasure as inextricably related to the bottoms. Even the Doms who enjoyed
harder play than their subs limited their activity to that which their partner could tolerate. As
Geoff explained, Its so intense because youre paying so much attention to your partner.
Perhaps the top is also a masochist who vicariously enjoys the pain he or she inflicts, as Freud
once suggested (1915), or perhaps an entirely different mechanism, or series of mechanisms, is
responsible for this reciprocity, such as right brain non-verbal communication associated with
empathic attunement (e.g. Schore, 2003), or mirror neurons (e.g., Seigel, 2007).
Second, nine participants were neither consistently dominant nor submissive. Seven of
them identify as subs or bottoms in their primary relationship, but are either switches with other
partners, or had been dominant in the past. Tammy, who refers to herself as a sex slave,
submissive and bottom to Jason, also identifies as a sexual sadist. Fendi, who had trained as a
Mistress, and later determined she had a slave heart, still tops others in play and is dominant
over the many people she and Josh mentor. However, this is not true for the Doms who were
interviewed. The seven Doms who were interviewed all identified solely and consistently as
dominant. This preference might be related to their need to feel control in the relationship.
136
These findings indicate that the roles of sadist and masochist are neither clearly
demarcated nor mutually exclusive. It is possible that, like sexual orientation (e.g., Brown,
2008), dominance and submission may be conceptualized on a spectrum. Such a perspective
might better capture the potential range of dominant and submissive features within an
individual.
Neurochemical components of pain. Although not specifically queried on this topic,
three couples indirectly referenced the neurochemical aspects of SM play: Diane said a certain
level of pain has the effect of a massage. When Barry used the prohibited paddles on Sabrina,
she spaced [i.e. experienced subspace] harder than . . . ever before. Cindy repeatedly referred
to physical SM play as addictive as both a top and bottom. She described bottoming similar to
Diane: I get past that threshold of, It hurts, . . . to where Oh, it doesnt hurt anymore, it feels
something different . . . it feels so good.
The SM community has been suggesting a connection between the pleasant physical
sensations experienced in response to erotic pain and endogenous opioids for over thirty years
(e.g., Mass, 1983). In SM circles, this experience is variously attributed to endorphins,
adrenaline, serotonin and dopamine (e.g., Mass, 1983; Wiseman, 1998;
http://www.evilmonk.org/a/addiction.cf). As one current internet source describes,
In the S&M communities, the pleasurable psychological state caused by intense
prolonged pain is known variously as "subspace," "headspace," "flying," "floating," or
"bottoming." It is experienced differently by individuals and there is no single definition
accepted in the BDSM and Leather communities. Some compare it to a morphine high.
Sometimes it describes a relaxing trance like state where the masochist processes the pain
while becoming unresponsive and mentally separating from his environment. Sometimes
it is described as invigorating. (Subspace and Getting High section, Para. 2).
Possible relation to self-injurious behavior. Literature regarding self-injurious behavior
(SIB) and general pain response may be instructive in uncovering the role of pain in SM. A
137
thorough discussion of the neurochemical response to pain is beyond the scope of this study.
However, a brief examination of literature in these fields suggests a compelling link between
pain and neurobiological mechanisms.
Sandman and Hetrick (1995) hypothesized an addictive quality to endogenous opiates
that serve to maintain SIB. They point to studies in which recipients of painful shock treatments
administered to deter SIB provoked rather than avoided the punishment. The authors explained
this reaction:
Both painful shock and restraint stimulate the release of the bodys own opiates.
Endogenous opiates . . . are more potent than morphine, pass the blood-brain barrier with
much greater ease than does morphine or heroin, and can produce behavioral symptoms
of addiction and analgesia. (p. 130)
The authors deduced from this addiction hypothesis that individuals who engage in SIB do not
enjoy the pain per se, but endure it in order to receive the pleasure induced by the flood of
endogenous opiates that follows.
Other studies relate dopamine to pain (e.g., Scott et al., 2006). Scott and colleagues
investigated dopamine neurotransmission in response to pain. They found individual differences
in the subjective experience of pain stress among participants (n=25). They also found a positive
correlation between physical and emotional ratings of pain and certain dopamine transmissions.
The findings suggest that there are individual differences in both the subjective experience of
pain and related dopaminergic activity, which could bear upon the attraction to pain in SM, as
well as to personal preferences regarding types and intensity of SM play.
Possible relation to dissociation. The above-described experience of subspace and
related phenomena (all of which are collectively referred to herein as subspace for ease of
reference) may be similar to the state of dissociation. The concept of dissociation is not welldefined in the literature, as it refers to different things in various contexts (Holmes et al., 2005,
138
p. 2), and is arguably incorporated into the description of most mental disorders (Holmes et al.,
2005). Since a comprehensive treatment of dissociation is beyond the scope of this study, below
is a brief discussion of dissociation within the adult trauma literature (e.g., Cardena & Carlson,
2011; Holmes et al., 2005), and infant trauma research (e.g. Schore, 2008).
According to the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychological Association, 2000), dissociative
disorders are characterized by a disruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness,
memory, identity, or perception . . . [which] may be sudden or gradual, transient or chronic (p.
519). Cardena and Carlson (2011) criticize this definition as vague and suggest that dissociation
be defined as [a]n experienced loss of information or control over mental processes that, under
normal circumstances, are available to conscious awareness, self-attribution, or control, in
relation to the individuals age and cognitive development (p. 251). They further describe the
symptoms of dissociation as follows:
(a) A loss of continuity in subjective experience with accompanying involuntary and
unwanted intrusions into awareness and behavior . . . and/or
(b) An inability to access information or control mental functions or behaviors . . . that
are normally amenable to such access/control . . . and/or
(c) A sense of experiential disconnectedness that may include perceptual distortions
about the self or the environment. (pp. 251-252)
Holmes et al. (2005) bifurcate dissociation into two qualitatively distinct phenomena:
Compartmentalization and detachment. Compartmentalization includes dissociative amnesia and
the symptoms of conversion and somatoform disorders that cannot be traced to specific physical
or neurological sources. It does not seem to share the described qualities of subspace and,
therefore, will not be discussed. Holmes et al. (2005) define detachment as
an altered state of consciousness characterized by a sense of separation (or detachment)
from certain aspects of everyday experience, be it their body (as in out-of-body
experiences), their sense of self (as in depersonalization), or in the external world (as in
derealization). (p. 5).
139
The authors note that detachment can be viewed on a spectrum, with non-distressful states of
detachment associated with fatigue or slight intoxication on the mild end and chronic, disturbing
detachment experiences, such as total blankness (Allen et al., 1999, as cited in Holmes, 2005,
p. 6) on the extreme side.
The description of subspace as a relaxing trance-like state in which a person is separated
from his environment (http://www.evilmonk.org/a/addiction.cfm) is suggestive of a detached
state as defined by Holmes et al. (2005). It might be viewed on the detachment continuum as an
acute, non-distressed state that, like intoxication, is both temporary and achieved in a purposeful
manner.
In the infant literature, Schore (2008) describes the state of dissociative hypoarousal
suffered by children in a helpless and hopeless situation engendered by caregiver maltreatment
(Schore, 2008, p. 111). According to Schore, dissociation is the infants final neurobiological
effort to withstand the intolerable stress of unrepaired breaks in the attachment environment due
to abuse or neglect. Hypoarousal follows the state of hyperarousal, which is characterized by
crying and screaming aimed at alerting the caregiver of the infants distress. When hyperarousal
fails, the dissociative hypoarousal ensues in order to prevent the over-release of corticotropin
releasing factor (the brains primary stress hormone), to encourage undetectability, and to
conserve energy. This process of metabolic shutdown and passive disengagement (Schore,
2008, p. 111) is considered to be a built-in biological survival strategy.
Dissociative hypoarousal has also been characterized as a passive state of pain-numbing
and pain-blunting [during which] endogenous opiates (Fanselow, 1986) are elevated (Schore,
2008, p. 111). It also involves increased levels of circulating adrenaline in spite of lowered blood
pressure, metabolism and heart rate (Schore, 2008). In these ways, dissociative hypoarousal
140
seems to resemble subspace. However, subspace would seem to differ from Schores (2008)
description of dissociation by the fact that it is brought on in an intentional, desirable, and
predictable manner, while dissociative hypoarousal is an autonomic nervous system response to
overwhelming terror (Schore, 2008). Whether dissociation of this kind is a state that can be
induced in a premeditated manner (such as through SM play) has not been addressed in the
literature.
Importantly, the characterization of subspace as a form of dissociation does not
necessarily imply pathology. Cardea and Carlson (2011) stress that in the absence of clinical
distress or dysfunction, dissociation is not pathological. Similarly, the continuum of dissociation
suggested by Holmes et al. (2005) leaves ample room for non-pathological versions of
dissociation. The DSM-IV-TR (American Psychological Association, 2000) also stresses the
importance of viewing dissociation through a culturally sensitive lens, noting that dissociative
states are a common and accepted expression in cultural activities or religious experiences in
many societies, (p. 519) and in most cases are not pathological, and do not lead to significant
distress, impairment or help-seeking behavior (p. 519). Thus, to the extent that SM is
considered a veritable subculture (e.g., Richters et al, 2008), the dissociative aspects of SM play
may be considered within the bounds of healthy behavior.
Merger of pain and pleasure through early trauma. Some psychoanalytic authors (e.g.,
Novick & Novick, 1996; Warren, 1997) associate the attraction to pain to an early painful
relationship with a misattuned or abusive mother. Notably, the researcher in the present study did
not gather data regarding early childhood experiences, which limits any analysis of SM and early
trauma. Further, although it is possible (and perhaps probable) that some of the participants
experienced traumatic first relationships, this particular theory seems restricted in its power to
141
explain SM. While the participants may be anxiously attached to their partners, and exhibit other
traits that typify a failure to individuate (e.g., Novick & Novick, 1996), the findings regarding
some of the participants may not necessarily support this theory, as discussed below.
First, according to Novick and Novick (1996) the result of severe disruption in the early
infant caregiver relationship manifests not only in the possible merger of physical pleasure and
pain, but also in a general attraction to suffering that is characteristic of a masochistic
personality. None of the participants in this study indicated such an attraction to suffering or
revealed any indication of a morally masochistic (Freud, 1924) relationship to the world. Most of
them framed their lives as quite gratifying, and expressed joy in finding a loving relationship
with their current partner. Notably, in this study, all couples were interviewed jointly. Individual
interviews might have yielded different results.
Second, Novick and Novicks (1996) description of physical masochistic behavior seems
to refer to self-harming behaviors that provide relief from the anxiety of lacking a nurturing
maternal figure. If that were the case, then it would seem that individuals who use SM in this
way would seek pain fairly spontaneously in response to the stimulation of this angst. Although
the couples in 24/7 D/s relationships did seem to rely on SM in this way, the couples in non-D/s
relationships did not. For example, Cindy, the most revealing participant on the subject of
physical play, is in an egalitarian marriage, and only engages in SM play at scheduled parties and
events. This difference could be explained by factors such as differing levels of past trauma, with
the D/s couples exhibiting greater symptomatology, as well as the availability of other selfsoothing activities. For instance, Cindy and John are runners who participate in half-marathons
together, thus, accessing an additional endorphin-laden outlet. Also, some participants might
142
derive comfort from simply anticipating the scheduled play parties, which in many communities
occur on a weekly basis.
Finally, Novick and Novicks (1996) theory does not address the eight participants who
enjoy both the bottom and top position. If an individual engages in SM play to experience the
presence of a primary object through pain, then it is unclear by what mechanism he or she would
be motivated to actually inflict pain on another. Even if sadism and masochism were a single
phenomenon, as Freud (1905, 1915, 1924) suggested, Novick and Novick (1996) do not seem to
intend to capture the experience of those who enjoy both giving and receiving physical erotic
pain and pleasure.
Other perspectives on pain. None of the participants in this study expressed a desire to
be hurt or to cause suffering to another. Those who identified as tops were careful to avoid
injuring their partners. Thus, all of the participants described, although not in detail, a particular
relationship with pain that brought them pleasure. Although a thorough understanding of pain as
experienced by the participants is prohibited by the paucity of the data on this topic, three
additional perspectives on pain may be explicative. These include: (a) pain as a mechanism of
inhibiting self- awareness, (b) the use of pain as an erotic symbol, and (c) pain as a social
construction.
Pain as a means of blocking awareness. Baumeister (1988), drawing on Scarrys
writings, posits that sexual masochists seek pain not because it is pleasurable, but rather because
of its annihilating effect on consciousness. For Baumeister, the pain experienced in SM absorbs
ones entire attention, leaving no room for thoughts, feelings or sensations outside of immediate
experience. In this way, Pain has great potential as a narcotic . . . It blots out higher-order
thought and complex or symbolic self-awareness (p. 38). Baumeister refers specifically to the
143
fact that masochists seek carefully measured doses of pain without injury, so as to extract the
benefits of pain without suffering the burdens.
Baumeisters (1988) argument adds an existential element to SM: Immersed in the
sensation of pain, the awareness of impending death, freedom, isolation and meaninglessness
(Yalom, 1980) would seem to temporarily wash away. One author describes this experience
during an orgasmic culmination of an SM scene: I had no volition, no ego, no self. I was a tiny
scrap of burning white energy floating in an infinitely huge universe, contained only by the intent
of my lover (Easton & Hardy, 2011, p. 33). Although beyond the scope of this study, an
existential theory of SM may be worthy of investigation.
Pain as an erotic symbol. According to some authors (e.g., Moser & Kleinplatz, 2006;
Weinberg, 1995), pain in itself is unimportant to many SMers. For such SM practitioners, the
significance of pain is its symbolization of the underlying power exchange. As such, it is only
one of many erotic manifestations of control and surrender (Weinberg, 1995). Weinberg explains
that [p]ain can be eroticized . . . [but to] focus exclusively on pain miss[es] the essence of S&M,
the ritualization of dominance and submission (p. 293).
Similarly, Moser and Kleinplatz (2006) note that the mere idea of pain in a sexually
charged environment is arousing for some. As explained by a participant in one of their studies,
I do not get turned on because my lover spanks my ass. I get turned on seeing him get
turned on spanking it. It is about the power exchange, force and most importantly a
mental state that makes me put his desires and needs ahead of my own. (p. 45)
For these SMers, the meaning of pain seems to supersede the physical experience. This may be
true with respect to Diane, who expressly relied on the rituals and symbolism of SM to provide
her with emotional security.
144
Pain as a social construction. The subjectivity of pain is a topic that has been undertaken
by constructionist authors (e.g., Newmahr, 2010). For instance, Newmahr identified four
discourses of pain through her ethnographic study of an SM community. First, some SMers
transformed pain into pleasure virtually instantaneously. For these interviewees, when pain is
experienced, it is understood as not hurting (p. 398). Second, other SMers conceived pain as
suffering which they endured for the benefit and pleasure of the top. Third, some viewed pain as
a means to an end in a, No pain, no gain, manner (p. 402). Finally, the last cohort equated pain
with pleasure, a phenomenon Newmahr labeled autotelic pain (p. 404). These individuals did
not believe they transformed pain into pleasure, but enjoyed it as is. For them, Autotelic pain
begins as pain, ends as pain, and is enjoyable nonetheless (p. 407). In Newmahrs (2010) view,
autotelic pain is the most significant because it defies the notion of pain as inherently negative.
Most of the participants who discussed experiencing pain seemed to describe it as
transformed from hurting to feeling good, as when a certain threshold is crossed and it feels like
a massage, as Diane indicated, or when it just starts feeling so good, as Cindy exclaimed. In
contrast, Sabrina may perceive her SM pain as an ode to Barry: When he smacks her tit and
she recalls that she likes it, she may enjoy it as a bestowal of pleasure upon him. None of the
participants in this study expressed an autotelic view of pain (Newmahr, 2010).
SM as creative play or primitive transitional phenomena. All of the participant
couples described engaging in physical SM play, and most of them regarded SM symbols and
rituals as significant in their relationship. Winnicott (1952/2005), discussed the significance of
play and symbols in his work, and developed the concepts of transitional object and
transitional phenomena to describe them. A thorough review of Winnicotts writing is beyond
145
the scope of this study. However, a review of these concepts seem requisite to a deeper
appreciation of the meaning of many SM activities and behaviors.
Winnicott (1952/2005) describes the mothers role in infant development as transitioning
from complete adaptation to the infants needs to the gradual introduction of frustration in
tolerable increments. Initially, as a result of the mothers almost perfect attunement, the infant
enjoys a magical sense of omnipotence through the illusion that reality corresponds to his or her
every wish:
The mothers adaptation to the infants needs, when good enough, gives the infant the
illusion of an external reality that corresponds to the infants own capacity to create. In
other words, there is an overlap between what the mother supplies and what the child
might conceive of. (p. 16)
Winnicott refers to this experience as a marriage of the infants sense of omnipotence with his
or her actual control (p. 64).
According to Winnicott (1952/2005), through the mothers adaptation to the babys
unique growing and changing needs, the baby develops trust that the mother is a reliable figure,
one who will protect the baby from suffering intolerable frustration as reality seeps in. This trust
in the mothers safe presence gives the baby the confidence to incrementally release the fantasy
that infant and mother are one.
These experiences create what Winnicott (1952/2005) calls potential space, wherein
the infant feels safe to explore the idea of separateness with confidence attained through the
internalization of a reliable mother: The potential space happens only in relation to a feeling of
confidence on the part of the baby . . . related to the dependability of the mother . . . confidence
being the evidence of dependability that is being introjected (1969/2005, p. 135). Thus,
paradoxically, separation from the mother can occur only to the extent of a secure intrapsychic
146
connection to her. The sensed connection ultimately becomes the bridge from dependency to
autonomy.
According to Winnicott, (1952/2005) the child will fill any potential space with
transitional phenomena, which are things that relate ones inner, subjective world to external
reality. In this way, it can be said that there is no space (p. 147). He describes a developmental
trajectory of transitional phenomena: Transitional objects, used in simple, stereotypic ways,
such as thumb-sucking, are the most basic. They represent the infants transition from a state of
being merged with the mother to a state of being in relation to the mother as something outside
and separate (pp. 19-20). Ordinarily, an infants attraction to transitional objects gradually fades
as he or she develops an interest in creative play and cultural pursuits.
In Winnicotts view, (1952/2005) no person ever becomes truly autonomous, because
humans cannot tolerate the notion of the world being completely separate from the self. Hence,
No human being is free from the strain of relating inner and outer reality (p. 18).
Consequently, adults continue to seek relief from this strain through intense experiences that
merge inner and outer reality. They do things that are comparable to the experience of children
who are lost in play (p. 18), such as devoting themselves to the arts . . . religion . . .
imaginative living, and . . . creative scientific work (p. 19). For Winnicott (1952/ 2005), a
persons mental health at any stage following infancy is reflected in his or her ability to approach
life in this way, with a sense of joy, flexibility and imagination (pp. 136-137).
According to Winnicott (1952/2005), transitional objects may be used not only to
manage, but also to communicate, themes of separation. He discussed two examples of a childs
use of string as a transitional object. Winnicott said of string that
147
[it] can be looked upon as an extension of all other techniques of communication. String
joins, just as it also helps in the wrapping up of objects and in the holding of unintegrated
material. In this respect string has a symbolic meaning for everyone. (1952/2005, p. 25)
He considered a two year-old boy who picked string out of a toy basket in the consulting room.
As Winnicott spoke to his mother, the boy played with the frayed end of the string. He
eventually approached his mother and gestured as if to plug in the end of the string to his
mothers leg (p. 58). According to Winnicott, he was using the string as a symbol of union with
his mother. It was clear that the string was simultaneously a symbol of separateness and of union
through communication (p. 58).
Winnicott (1952/2005) also refered to the case of a seven year old boy who had
experienced significant breaks in attachment to his mother before the age of five. This child was
obsessed with anything having to do with string. He frequently tied items of furniture and other
large household objects together. On one occasion, he had tied string around his sisters neck,
and later, as an adolescent, he hung himself with rope by his feet from various places (pp. 2025).
According to Winnicott (1952/2005), by tying things together, the boy had originally
used string to communicate his fear of separation from his mother. However, his use of string
and later rope had evolved over the years from communication into a denial of separation, a
significant change in Winnicotts view. He explained,
As a denial of separation string becomes a thing in itself, something that has dangerous
properties and must be mastered. . . . When hope is absent and string represents a denial
of separation, then a much more complex state of affairs has arisen one that becomes
difficult to cure, because of the secondary gains that arise out of the skill that develops
whenever an object has to be handled in order to be mastered. (p. 26)
This concept of the denial of separation is consistent with Novick and Novick (1996) and
Warrens (1997) reference to the inability to safely separate from the mother and achieve a sense
148
of autonomy. All of these authors refer to the acceptance of others as distinct and outside of
ones control as a formidable obstacle for those whose primary caregivers did not provide
sufficient nurturance.
Application of Winnicott to participants. When viewed through the above Winnocottian
(1952/2005) lens, the question that emerges is: To what extent can SM be considered play? For
Winnicott, play refers to a creative approach to living, as opposed to a sense of compliance, by
which a person lives more mechanistically, with the world and all its details being recognized
but only as something to be fitted in with or demanding adaptation (1952/2005, p. 87).
Moreover, compliance carries with it a sense of futility for the individual and is associated with
the idea that nothing matters and life is not worth living (p. 87). Hence, living in this way is a
hollow, joyless experience, lacking individual expression, vibrancy or passion.
SM as creative living. None of the participants seemed to be living in a mechanistic
fashion. Many describe the lifestyle as either freeing them from a pattern of ungratifying
relationships or from a more compliant approach to life. One participant was initially attracted to
the virtual SM worlds on the internet because of the imagination involved. Many expressed an
unequivocal intention to continue their SM ventures into old age by finding creative ways to
maintain their sense of kink. As one participant declared, Im going to be 80 years old thinking,
Im gonna put a thong on and Im gonna do something kinky.
Moreover, none of the participants exhibited schizoid features, or expressed a sense of
emptiness or futility. Seven of the couples imparted considerable enthusiasm for exploring,
learning, and sharing SM. The same seven also conveyed a palpable sense of care and affection
for one another.
149
Whether they fully integrate SM into a long-term marriage like Tammy and Jason, or
simply incorporate SM play as a titillating recreation like Angela and Geoff, the lifestyle seems
to lend an intensity, or libidinous charge, to these relationships. Winnicott (1952/2005) was
careful to emphasize the creative impulse (p. 93) rather than the content or product of a
persons play. Hence, notwithstanding the controversial content of SM, the lifestyle could be
considered a manifestation of creativity.
SM as transitional phenomena. It could also be the case that some participants use SM as
a form of play, while others use it as a more primitive form of transitional phenomena and a
denial of separation. Examples of what might be considered this more regressive use of SM are
discussed below.
The SM power exchange creates an illusion not only of omnipotence, but also of
helplessness, worthlessness, or other psychological constructs. From a Winnicottian (1952/2005)
perspective, one might look to the type of play and the extent of reliance on the illusion it creates
to determine where on the spectrum between primitive transitional phenomena or more
sophisticated play such behavior would fall. Although this view is an over-simplification,
couples who live a 24/7 D/s lifestyle arguably seek to immerse themselves in the illusion of nonseparation. Those who share an egalitarian relationship and only use SM for play, like Cindy and
John, Angela and Geoff, or Sam and Jen, might appear less regressive. However, to the extent
that they need or are obsessed with SM, it is possible that SM serves the purpose of an early
transitional object for them as well. These views are explored below.
For those in 24/7 D/s relationships, the heavy reliance on rules and rituals may suggest
the use of SM as a denial of separation. Rules and rituals contribute to an atmosphere in which
150
each partner exists for the purpose of satisfying the others needs. In some relationships, the rules
serve this function for the Dom, and in others, the rituals operate in this way for the sub.
D/s relationships governed by the Doms rules arguably create an illusion that the sub is
under the Doms magical control (Winnicott, 1952/2005, p. 15). In these relationships, the sub
is prohibited from behaving in ways that frustrate the Dom. The rules ensure that at least within
the respite of the relationship, external reality . . . corresponds to the [Doms] own capacity to
create (p. 16). The relationship can be likened to a dreamscape in which the Doms idea of what
is internally pleasing is matched by objective reality. As Winnicott described, Omnipotence is
nearly a fact of experience for the Dom (1952/2005, p. 15). Through almost total command over
their partners, Barry and Josh seem to enjoy this illusion.
Similarly, subs who, despite their submissive role, actually exercise dominion over the
relationship, such as Diane, can use the D/s model to generate the same effect. To illustrate,
Diane demands a daily cascade of rituals and symbols, from texts in the morning, to winks in
public, and cuffs at bedtime. In addition to Reggies responding to her emotions with perfect
acuity, she requires this constant attention as an affirmation of his exclusive preoccupation with
her. In this way, she too seems to seek a reproduction of the good enough mothers 100 percent
adaptation (Winnicott, 1952/2005, p. 15).
Symbols and rituals could represent transitional objects for other couples as well by
providing periodic reminders of non-separation (Winnicott, 1952/2005). For example, Sam and
Jen view their large purple collars as comparable to wedding bands, and the long strip of fabric
with which they link their collars as a symbol of their bond. While a wedding band is a culturally
accepted method of representing a union, this couples magnified symbols of attachment, like an
enlarged umbilical cord, could reflect vehement protestations of separation.
151
To the extent that rope bondage is a form of play, rope tops could be working through
their unresolved separation material in an imaginative way, or alternatively using rope as a
means of denying separation. Winnicott (1952/2005) explained that when string has become a
thing in itself, something that has dangerous properties and must be mastered (p. 26), it may be
indicative of a denial of separation. The two couples who practice rope bondage take their rope
skills quite seriously. For Tammy and Jason, rope is an art and a skill that requires expertise and
dedication. For Sam and Jen, rope is not only an artistic endeavor, but it is also imbued with
spiritual meaning. They not only play with it, but they also create their own rope because of its
spiritual significance. For these two couples, rope is a special craft unto itself, which all of them
seek to master.
Winnicott (1952/2005) touched on two ways rope or string can be used: As a
communication of connection and individuation, or as a denial of separation. Both Jason and Jen
expressed a penchant for rope from an early age. Jen tied up her Barbie dolls as a child. Perhaps,
like the seven-year old Winnicott described, rope began as a form of communication for Jen, but
as hope for a reliable mother faded, the rope evolved into a thing in itself, with secondary gains
through which it retained its attraction.
Jason described rope as both a form of communication and control. However, he may be
primarily communicating the fact of his control by using it to completely immobilize and
dominate another. In this way, by creating the illusion of omnipotent control, rope bondage for
Jason, and any rope top, may suggest a denial of separation.
SM, trauma, and emotion regulation. Learning to live through states of high arousal
(no matter what their source) allows us to maintain equilibrium and sanity. It enables us to live
life in its full range and richness from agony to ecstasy (Levine, 2010, p. 17). Some people
152
may use SM may help to attain this sense of equilibrium. Although a full review of the literature
regarding emotion regulation is beyond the scope of this study, the work of Levine (2010) is
instructive.
Levines tonic immobility theory of trauma. According to Levines (2010), tonic
immobility theory of trauma Trauma occurs when we are intensely frightened and are either
physically restrained or perceive that we are trapped. We freeze in paralysis and/or collapse in
overwhelming helplessness (p. 48). As Levine described, tonic immobility is a condition that
occurs when neither fight nor flight is an option. It is a default state of paralysis that may
include either freezing in fright or collapsing into helplessness (p. 48). This analysis is
consistent with Schores (2003) analysis of hyperaroused and hypoaroused states that the infant
experiences in response to caregiver abuse and/or failure to interactively repair breaches in the
attachment environment.
Tonic immobility occurs, in part, as a result of endorphins flooding the brain. In addition
to the paralysis, it also promotes an analgesic effect which numbs any physical pain, and a
dissociative effect that can cause one to feel as if he or she is witness[ing] the event as though
from outside his or her body, as if it were happening to someone else (Levine, 2010, p. 50).
Upon emerging from such a helpless state, the traumatized person becomes enraged
(Levine, 2010, p. 64). Rage is (biologically) about the urge to kill (p. 65). Physiologically, in
mammals and reptiles, rage provides a violent energy that can be used to survive an attack by
fighting back or fleeing. However, for humans, when the trauma is not life threatening, such as a
child being alone and restrained in the hospital prior to an operation, the rage has no outlet.
Because rage is so threatening, when it has no outlet it is often turned against the self and
suppressed even before it is fully experienced (Levine, 2010). In that case, the body is forced to
153
store intolerable amounts of anger and fear with no avenue for expulsion. These emotions are
terrifying on their own, but are further magnified by the consequent shut-down of the prefrontal
cortex, which would normally interject rational thought.
As a result, enraged individuals become flooded by negative affect, and terrified of its
potential (Levine, 2010). In order to exert self-control, they self-induce tonic immobility.
However, this subsequently re-stimulates the rage. As Levine described, A traumatized
individual is literally imprisoned, repeatedly frightened and restrained by his or her own
persistent physiological reactions and by fear of those reactions and emotions (p. 66). As this
researcher understands it, the fear/immobility cycle works in the following way: The person
experiences negative affect and becomes overwhelmed by it. He or she then becomes afraid of
the overwhelming feelings. This fear induces a state of immobility and helplessness, which
culminates in rage, rekindling the cycle.
In their daily lives, people who suffer from this traumatic process tend to vacillate
between two modes: shutdown and outbursts of impotent and misdirected rage (Levine,
2010, p. 64). They are often unable to engage in life and suffer from the core emotional
symptoms of trauma: Numbness, shutdown, entrapment, helplessness, depression, fear, terror,
rage and hopelessness (p. 67).
Levine (2010) emphasized that immobility alone does not lead to trauma, and can be
experienced as benign and enjoyable. For example, the consensual sexual act and orgasmic
release involve some immobility in the absence of fear. It can also be identified in a mother cat
carrying its limp kitten securely in its mouth (p. 55-56). Also, non-traumatized people who
experience hypnotic catalepsy are immobilized but often experience it as neutral, interesting,
or even pleasurable (p. 58).
154
Levine (2010) is convinced that the cyclical traumatic response results from the
combination of immobility and fear. He observed that a precondition for the development of
post-traumatic stress disorder is that a person is both frightened and perceives that he or she is
trapped (p. 58). Importantly, because of the fear/immobility cycle, Levine believes traumatized
individuals have conditioned themselves to automatically associate fear with immobility.
Levines model for alleviating trauma. Levine (2010) proposed that the key to resolving
trauma is being able to uncouple and separate the fear from the immobility (p. 56). This is
accomplished primarily through containment, or the ability to experience powerful
sensations, emotions and impulses without becoming overwhelmed (p. 68). According to
Levine, trauma is alleviated as the client learns to experience the immobility in the absence of
fear (p. 68).
Levines (2010) Somatic Experiencing therapy provides nine building blocks to
transform trauma (pp. 74-75). The entire therapy protocol is beyond the scope of this project, but
certain aspects of his process may be relevant to SM relationships. They are discussed below.
The first stage of Levines (2010) therapy is to establish an environment of relative
safety. The soothing presence of a relaxed, regulated other can provide a sense that everything
will be okay. This process is difficult because fear is nonverbally contagious, and containing
another person requires composure. Thus, Levine encouraged therapists to find a place of
equanimity from which to share and help contain our clients terrors in a blanket of
compassion(p. 46).
However, providing a calm sense of safety is not enough (Levine, 2010). Recovery
requires the ability to self-soothe. The therapist who does not help the client to regulate his or her
own emotions unassisted could be creating a damaging sense of dependency. Levine explained,
155
[t]he therapist who provides only a sense of safety (no matter how effectively) will only make
the client increasingly dependentand thus will increase the imbalance of power between
therapist and client (p. 76).
Levines third stage is pendulation and containment (2010, p. 74). He defined
pendulation as, the bodys natural restorative rhythm of contraction and expansion that tells us
that whatever is felt is time-limited. . . that suffering will not last forever (p. 79). This stage
involves helping the client encounter the awful sensations he or she is avoiding. According to
Levine, one method of enticing clients to tolerate the avoided sensations is to help them find a
pleasurable one. It can be located in a particular area of the body, in a particular posture, or in a
small movement; or one that is associated with the persons feeling less frozen, less helpless,
more powerful and/or more fluid (p. 79).
Stage five involves providing a corrective experience by supplanting the passive
responses of collapse and helplessness with active, empowered, defensive responses (Levine,
2010, p. 75). Empowerment is achieved by allowing the muscles to do what they wish to do
when the self feels threatened, rather than acquiesce to paralysis and collapse. Empowerment
reinforces a sense of competency, and also helps to dissolve the entrenched guilt and selfjudgment that may be byproducts of helplessness and repressed/dissociated rage (p. 85).
Application of Levines model to the data. Many of the interviewees referred to
experiencing symptoms that could be indicative of past trauma and uncontained rage: Geoff
experienced terrifying levels of rage throughout his life; Tammy suffers from chronic fatigue
syndrome; Barry suffered from depression and alcohol addiction; Sabrina referenced alcohol
addiction and panic attacks; Fendi was abstruse in her description, but insinuated multiple
difficult relationships and a sense of chaos that was so troubling that she entered a strict M/s
156
training protocol to gain a sense of stability; Josh also intimated a cascade of ungratifying
relationships and an inability to commit; Diane was in at least one abusive relationship; Reggie
mentioned two failed marriages and intense fears that caused him to chronically flee
relationships; and Jen implied past abuse.
Hypothesis regarding submissives. A unique quality of the D/s relationship is the stark
role differentiation. The Doms job in the relationship is to maintain control (as all three of these
Doms indicated). Such control requires resisting the temptation to become entangled in the subs
dysregulated emotion, since succumbing to the subs provocative negative affect would result in
a power struggle. As Josh indicated, In a D/s relationship . . . I dont see room for a real
argument.
The Doms in this study are able to remain composed in the wake of the subs emotional
storm. They do not mirror her feelings of fear, anger and helplessness. In Levines (2010) terms,
the Dom is unreceptive to the transmission of fear through postural resonance [since that would
create] an escalating situation, a positive feedback loop (with negative consequences) (p. 46).
Handling the subs emotions in this way contributes to an environment of relative safety
(Levine, 2010, p. 76) for the sub. The three subs in 24/7 D/s relationships (Diane, Sabrina and
Fendi) described savoring the sense of emotional safety their Dom provided.
In addition to a sense of emotional security, the subs may choose D/s in order to enlist
another person (the Dom) to de-escalate or contain their intolerable emotions. All three 24/7 D/s
couples fit this profile, as the three Doms were described as functioning as containers for their
subs. Josh invites Fendis deep sadness and embraces her in times of emotional collapse. Barry
senses Sabrinas anger and knows how to help her expel it even when she does not. She even
provokes his dominance when she feels a need to be put in her place.
157
Notably, Sabrinas panic attacks have diminished significantly over the duration of their
four-year relationship. At the time of the interview, it had been two months since she had
discontinued the medication she had been taking for 12 years. Barry noticed that she had become
more emotionally volatile the past two months, but he emphasized that her anger does not agitate
him: In case she gets spun up, he said blithely, I remind her that she is a little spun up.
Diane was the most concrete about her need for containment: I just spin out of control
and I get unreasonable . . . if I dont have somebody who is strong who can tell me to stop and
make me feel safe and calm. She ultimately taught Reggie how to contain her, but he spent the
first five years being triggered by her emotional chaos. The fundamental shift in their
relationship occurred when he realized that her angry outbursts were not intended to degrade
him, and did not actually concern him. They were her temper tantrums, and she implored him to
contain her through his dominance. Now he reads Dianes body language immediately, knows
when she is overwhelmed, and soothes her by reminding her of his control and giving her the
attention she needs.
Each of these three subs uses her Dom to contain her overwhelming emotions. In one
sense this is an effective tactic: The couple does not fight and both partners seem happy.
However, as Levine (2010) warned, chronic reliance on another for affect stability can create a
damaging sense of dependency (p. 76). Particularly interesting is Levines observation that this
dynamic promotes a power imbalance, even in a therapeutic context. Thus, each time a Dom
contains his subs emotion, he or she reinforces the subs sense of incompetence and dependency
on the Dom for that purpose. In this way, the sub is systematically hindered from becoming
self-regulating and authentically autonomous (p. 76), which is vital to trauma recovery.
158
Hypothesis regarding Dominants. It appears that the Doms in these relationships are also
drawn to a sense of equanimity, which they achieve by selecting a sub who will not trigger the
feelings that they find dysregulating. Barry, Josh, and Reggie all experienced vanilla marriages
that emotionally taxed them in ways they could not tolerate. Little detail was provided about
these previous relationships. However, they seemed to be characterized by an overall a sense of
helplessness and anger.
For example, Joshs previous marriage was marked by anger and anxiety that he could
not contain. He stated explicitly that to feel safe and loved in a relationship, he needs to feel in
control, which he did not experience while married to an ambitious, professional woman.
However, in a D/s relationship, he avoids experiencing the painful emotions he associates with a
lack of control over his partner. Likewise, although he did not explicitly state a need for control,
Barry relishes being king and exercising complete authority over all relationship and
household matters.
Reggie also attributes his past relationship failures to a mismatched need for control. He
explained:
The reason I feel my previous marriages probably have failed is because they were
vanilla, and even though I didnt realize it, I was dominant and I wanted to control the
relationship . . . and they didnt like that, and they took it as aggression towards them.
Barry and Josh (as well as their wives) described their D/s relationships as perfect for them.
Reggie described his relationship with Diane as eternal.
It is also possible that the Doms power in these relationships also grants them a
sanctioned outlet for their anger. For instance, when Barry is angry, he is entitled to throw his
dirty laundry across the room, or swat an unsuspecting Sabrina as she walks by. In a symbiotic
twist, rather than require him to contain his aggression, she invites it as a sign of his dominance
159
over (and perhaps his containment of) her, which seems to reinforce her own sense of safety.
Neither Josh nor Reggie disclosed this type of information during their interview, although Josh
described himself as a sexual sadist without further detail.
Similar to the subs discussed above, the Doms are not able to independently regulate the
full range of their own affect. Levine (2010) might suggest that ideally, these men would learn to
recognize and tolerate their anger and fear, rather than choose a partner who simply is not
allowed to stimulate it as an agreed-upon rule of the relationship. Notably, due to their
constrictive nature, these D/s relationships could be viewed as co-dependent and growthprohibitive for both partners: The exercise of too much autonomy by the sub is likely to trigger
the Doms need for control, and any suggestion of autonomy by the Dom would likely be
experienced by the sub as rejection or abandonment. Hence, individuation within these
relationships could be extremely difficult.
As an aside, Geoff, who engages in SM play within an egalitarian relationship, described
using play as a method of emotional regulation. He and Angela noticed that SM play provided a
constructive outlet for his rage, which he no longer experiences. It might be argued that by
playing a Dom in the limited SM play setting, Geoff sublimated his anger, finding a healthier
mechanism than a D/s relationship. He could be seen as self-soothing through an activity
involving a partner, rather than relying on one to interactively regulate him.
SM as a corrective experience. Perhaps SM play could be viewed as a form of
pendulation, or attempt to achieve a corrective experience in order to recover from prior
trauma. Levine (2010) described pendulation as including sensations a person associates with
feeling less frozen, less helpless, more powerful and/or more fluid (p. 79). In SM play, the sub
experiences both surrender and control: He or she gives all of the power to the Dom, yet retains
160
the authority to stop the scene at any time with a safe word. Although only conjectural, this
complex dynamic could stimulate contemporaneous helplessness and mastery, which might
promote healing. Barker et al. (2007) suggested that SM scenes might be used in a similar
manner, through healing narratives by which individuals reenact experiences of physical pain
and disability, depression and victimization (p. 206) in a way that feels empowering.
Moreover, Levine (2010) stressed the importance of uncoupling fear and immobility by
learning to experience immobility in the absence of fear. Perhaps being tied to a cross, bound in
rope, or otherwise restrained, constitute safe immobilization experiences through which the sub
unconsciously seeks to accomplish this decoupling.
In addition, SM play could act as a corrective experience by allowing the sub in some cases
to replace the onset of collapse and helplessness with active, empowered, defensive responses
(Levine, 2010, p. 75). When Tammy is bound, she fights back until she is overpowered, and
cannot relax until this occurs. Cindy described a similar dynamic with John, wherein she feels
free to hit and scream and fight back as part of the trajectory of submitting. Through such
aggressive responses, these women could be exercising their biological defensive mechanisms,
thus combatting helplessness and increasing their sense of empowerment.
SM play could also be corrective for the Dom or top. The top may experience SM play as
an interruption of general malaise, helplessness or vague sense of impotence that operates within
him or her as a result of past trauma. In this way, play could be experienced as a pendulation or
corrective experience vis a vis the Doms deflated sense of self. Geoff described feeling
powerful and efficacious as a Dom in the SM environment. Although his SM activity is limited
to play, he associated diminished rage and anxiety and an enhanced sense of self due to the
respect and power he experienced as a Dom.
161
SM as repetition compulsion. Freud originated the concept of the compulsion to repeat

in Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through (1914), but did not fully explore the idea
until years later, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920). There he described it as a
mechanism by which the individual repeats interactions containing repressed, painful material,
without any memory of the original experience. According to Freud, this repetition occurs in lieu
of recollection, with unwished-for exactitude (1920, p. 18), and is always related to the
Oedipus complex. He further opined that children re-enact these unpleasurable experiences
during play in order to achieve mastery over them, since in play they exercise control which was
absent during the original experience (1920, p. 35).
In Freuds (1914) view, the level of anxiety connected to an experience determines
whether it will be reenacted or remembered. As he observed, The greater the resistance, the
more extensively will acting out (repetition) replace remembering (1914, p. 151). He also
viewed the repressed and repeated material as characterological, in that It has already made its
way from the sources of the repressed into [the persons] manifest personality his inhibitions
and unserviceable attitudes and his pathological character traits (1914, p. 151).
Freud has been criticized for explaining the source of repetition compulsion by reference
to the repressed death instinct, a theory he subsequently abandoned, leaving the theory of
repetition compulsion with a lack of foundation (e.g., Kumin, 1996). Kumin suggested that
repetition compulsion could be alternatively explained in a broader sense as a form of affect
regulation. In this way, it applies to not only past wishes, conflicts, and traumatic experiences
but the entire pattern of archaic affect regulation, which was originally mediated by the infants
mother (p. 169). His theory relating repetition compulsion to the pre-object relational landscape
is quite complex and beyond the scope of this study. However, salient points of his analysis are
162
set forth below.

Consistent with other psychodynamic theorists mentioned herein (e.g., Winnicott,
1952/2005; Schore, 2003), Kumin (1996) described the healthy infant caregiving environment as
one in which the baby introjects a containing mother and internalizes her affect-regulating
capacities. As a result of this process, the child develops ego resilience, enabling him or her to
tolerate emotional fluctuation without becoming overwhelmed. When the mother is unable to
fulfill this containing function, trauma to the infant ensues. Importantly, Kumin contended that
affective interactions between mother and infant that are critical to this process commence at or
even before birth (p. 30).
Kumin (1996) opined that during the early, pre-object representational stage of infancy,
the child cannot differentiate between self and other, or between sensory modalities, as the
psychic landscape for language or symbolism has not yet developed. Hence, there can be no
structured memory of overwhelming, traumatic, affective experiences during this period. Such
memories are largely somatic and amodal, meaning that they are not stored in a particular
sensory modality (p. 64-65). As Kumin (1996) explained, Affects that cannot find adequate
mediation leading to verbal or symbolic representation are often expressed somatically, since
pre-object relatedness often depends on body ego functioning (p. 173).
According to Kumin (1996), the phenomenon of repetition compulsion is a form of
infantile affect regulation (p. 172). The repetition is of pre-object, intermodal, distress signals
transmitted to another through body language in order to internalize the others containing
function where one lacks an adaptive emotional response. Kumin insisted that all affect can be
communicated through the body: There is a concrete equivalence between ones affect and its
expression in body language . . . [which] adults retain an innate capacity to receive, apprehend,
163
and transmit . . . amodally (p. 176).

Importantly, Kumin (1996) emphasized that this attempt to achieve affect equilibrium
through the use of another is pre-motivational: It originates prior to the inception of meaning.
Thus, it is not triggered by unconscious intention as in the case of projective identification.
Rather, Intermodal exchanges can be triggered directly, without the intervening motivated
unconscious wish or fantasy of externalizing ones overwhelming affects into another person or
into an internal object representation (p. 179). In this way, Kumin described it as a hard-wired
response to gaps in the affect regulation field caused by early trauma.
In Kumins (1996) view, the etymology of myriad disorders can be explained by this
attempt to re-experience and regulate archaic affects. In particular, conditions that include a
predominant physiological component, including psychosomatic states, perversions (Khan,
1979a, 1979b), addictions . . . phobias, panic states, posttraumatic disorders and self-mutilation
(pp. 173-174) suggest repetition compulsion. Specifically with regard to perversions, Kumin
referred to Gould (1991), who characterized them as an inability to master overwhelming
affects related to childhood trauma (Kumin, 1996, p. 174), rather than simply sexually
disordered behavior.
Kumin (1996) emphasized that all repetition compulsion contains affective elements
traceable to infancy. In his view, trauma reactions in response to later life events presuppose a
fault in the pre-object representational stage, and are triggered at least in part by a primitive
emotional signal. He explained,
While ones affects may be evoked by or may themselves evoke memory, fantasy,
defense, and other activities based on representational thought, the underlying affect itself
is a bodily sensation whose nature is more developmentally archaic than that of mental
representation. (p. 176)
164
Kumins (1996) theory suggests that all of the SM behaviors chronicled in this study
contain threads of repetition compulsion. Based on other bodies of literature regarding emotion
regulation (e.g., Levine, 2010), SM appears to serve a fundamental affect regulating role for the
participants. Yet, the reason these couples have selected SM over other lifestyles involving
structure or extreme physicality is unknown. Perhaps the attraction to SM is related to the nature
of their pre-object affective environment. The complex web of non-verbal communication
inherent in SM relations may include the intermodal transmissions to which Kumin (1996)
referred. SM provides an erotically charged dyadic experience that is highly stimulating and
intensely somatic, perhaps inducing sensations reminiscent of pre-object experiences. Moreover,
the attraction to subspace, which is arguably a dissociative state, might be related to
experiences of pre-object dissociation induced by trauma. The prominent physiological
elements, affective intensity, and addictive component of SM could be viewed as evidence that
those who engage in it are repeatedly seeking interactive regulation on a deeply unconscious preobject level.
According to Freud (1914) all repetition compulsion involves infant sexuality, as
manifested by the Oedipus complex. Whether conscious or not, the monogamous couples in this
study are engaged in a lifestyle that is expressly permissive, and arguably encouraging, of
multiple sexual partners. Virtually all of them incorporate others into their SM dyad, grapple
with the appropriate method of doing so, or fantasize about it. Although the data does not permit
a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon, the Oedipal, pre-Oedipal (and possibly
other) implications of these couples inclination to invite a third party into their relationship
cannot be ignored.
165
SM, Intimacy and Closeness

Intimacy is an elusive topic for social scientists (e.g., Reis & Shaver, 1988; Mitchell et
al., 2008). Reis and Shavers interpersonal process model of intimacy has been the subject of
many empirical studies (Laurenceau, Feldman Barret, & Pietromonaco, 1998, as cited in
Mitchell et al., 2008; Laurenceau, Feldman Barrett & Rovine, 2005). They have defined intimacy
as,
an interpersonal process within which two interaction partners experience and express
feelings, communicate verbally and nonverbally, satisfy social motives, augment or
reduce social fears, talk and learn about themselves and their unique characteristics, and
become close (psychologically and often physically: touching, using intimate names
and tones of voices, perhaps having sex). (Reis & Shaver, 1988, pp. 387-388)
According to this model, exposure of ones inner self, which is received with understanding,
validation and care by ones partners is integral to forging intimacy. Exposing ones inner self
involves disclosing personal desires, fantasies, anxieties, and emotions (Reis & Shaver, 1988,
p. 376), rather than simply facts. Such disclosure provides an opportunity for the other person to
validate the vulnerable, real parts of the self that have been revealed.
Reis and Shaver (1998) described the concept of understanding as As belief that B
accurately perceives As needs, constructs, feelings, self-definition, and life predicaments (p.
380). Understanding requires that A feel known to B. It is a precondition of validation, which
involves B confirming As view of the positive aspects of himself or herself. They describe
feeling cared for as a sense of being well-liked within a proximity-seeking dyad.
Reis and Shaver (1988) considered several processes as integral to forming an intimate
relationship. These include (but are not limited to) a feeling of commitment to one another,
responsiveness to each others needs, an expectation that ones needs will be met, and a sense of
stability forged from a history of positive experiences. The authors explained, Such stability
166
engenders confidence, security, dependability, and trust, all of which facilitate further intimacy
(p. 384).
Like intimacy, the concept of closeness in relationships is difficult to define (Ben-Ari &
Lavee, 2007). Ben-Ari and Lavee developed a conceptual model of dyadic closeness in married
couples based on in-depth interviews with 22 Israeli married couples. They extracted three basic
themes: Friendship, sharing and caring (p. 638).
Friendship was the most prominent theme relating to closeness. It was described as
including trust, mutual respect, unconditional support, commitment and responsibility, and a
general feeling that one is there for the other (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2007, p. 638). The concept of
sharing referred to the ability to express feelings, experiences, thoughts, and ideas, as well as
the desire for meaningful conversations (p. 639) and the valuing of such conversations as
important in the relationship. The notion of caring involved sensitivity to the others needs and
preferences . . . doing things for the other in recognition that such things are valued and
appreciated (p. 639). Notably, caring was found to be an asymmetrical quality, in that one
partner provides it while the other receives. Thus, while both partners may provide care to one
another, they may not necessarily do so contemporaneously.
Ben-Ari and Lavee (2007) determined that people express closeness primarily through
spatial proximity to one another and physical contact, as well as by spending time together
involved in leisure activities. They also found that closeness was enhanced by a shared view of
how closeness is achieved.
Application of intimacy and closeness to the findings. Based on the above research, SM
seems to be used by at least some of the couples as a vehicle to enhance intimacy and closeness.
Several of the couples mentioned aspects of intimacy in their interviews. Sam and Jen were the
167
most explicit in their association of SM with intimacy. Both expressed ways in which SM
allowed for increased vulnerability with one another. Jen was drawn to the fact that she could
expose her deepest fantasies to Sam without fear of reprisal. They use their SM play to place one
another in increasingly vulnerable situations, seemingly testing and affirming their respective
trustworthiness.
During Sam and Jens play, the partner playing the role of the top attunes to the bottoms
emotional state, continually shows understanding of his or her limitations, and validates his or
her resilience. They also demonstrate great care in their SM play. Jen runs her hand over Sams
back when she flogs him in a nonverbal gesture of nurturance and love. These examples also
illuminate their mutual emotional responsiveness, which is also reflected in their recognition of
the safety word in their everyday lives.
Three of the couples exhibited prominent elements of dyadic closeness as described by
Ben-Ari and Lavee (2007). John and Cindy accentuated their deep friendship throughout the
interview. Although they experimented with other play partners regularly and intensely, they
seemed to value their friendship above the novelty and excitement of their SM journey and had
developed a check and balance system with one another to protect the sanctimony of their
relationship.
Both Fendi and Josh and Barry and Sabrina exemplified the asymmetrical nature of care
in their relationship. Josh experienced Fendis submission as care and nurturance, while she
similarly perceived his validation of her vulnerable little girl feelings. Barry felt cared for by
Sabrinas domestic attentiveness, and like Fendi, Sabrina associated care with the sense of safety
she felt within the domain of Barrys control.
It is arguable that all of the couples experience a heightened level of intimacy and
168
closeness during, or as a result of SM play with one another. An SM play scene is an inherently
vulnerable situation for both the bottom, who is rendered generally helpless, and the top, who is
responsible for the event and the bottoms experience of it. The couples who discussed playing
together (Angela and Geoff, Sam and Jen, Diane and Reggie, and John and Cindy), described
feeling safe with one another and enjoying a sense of presence, attunement, physical connection
and care during play. In these ways, monogamous SM play can be a joint activity that fosters
intimacy and closeness. Issues clearly arise in connection with the temptation to incorporate play
with others, in part because of the intrinsic intimacy of SM activities.
The participants may have chosen the SM lifestyle in part because it provides unique
access to intimacy and closeness. SM creates an environment in which heightened physical and
emotional vulnerability are accepted and encouraged. Virtually all of the couples in this study
expressed the desire to safely expose their inner selves to one another in order to capture a
sense of intimacy. Moreover, as monogamous couples, they may be using this shared, highly
emotional endeavor, in which they invest significant time to promote a level of closeness that
might otherwise be difficult to achieve.
Limitations of the Research
This research is subject to several limitations. Narrative research is inherently limited, in
that it seeks depth of understanding at the cost of breadth. In this study, eight couples were
interviewed. The sample size is not representative of the general population. The small sample
size naturally affects the quantity of data available for analysis. It also limits the applicability of
the findings, in that the data gathered cannot be said to apply to the population as a whole. Each
relationship is unique, and there is no implication that the themes extracted from this study apply
to other relationships.
169
Also, as monogamous heterosexuals, the participants represent minorities within the

greater SM subculture. More than one study has referred to the fact that SM practitioners are less
likely to be exclusively heterosexual and more likely to have a greater number of sexual partners
than their vanilla counterparts (e.g., Richters et al., 2008; Sandnabba, Santtila, Alison &
Nordling, 2002). The researcher experienced difficulty identifying and recruiting participants for
the study in part because of the small pool of qualifying individuals. In addition, the data was
limited to self-reports in a joint interview format and was not cross-referenced with other data
from the interviewees. Finally, the research question naturally circumscribed the data to material
regarding the participants adult relationships. Thus, data regarding the participants early
experiences was not available.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study constitutes a preliminary look at the lives of heterosexual couples in long-term
monogamous relationships that regularly incorporate SM. The results of this study could
stimulate additional research involving individuals and couples who engage in SM. Topics for
future research might include a more in-depth look at the subgroups within the SM culture; a
view of SM behaviors as continua; correlations between early history and attraction to SM,
including attachment patterns; a look at the personalities of SM practitioners without presuming
the presence of masochistic and sadistic personality disorders; and how SM might contribute to
intimacy and closeness.
This study uncovered multiple styles of SM relationships. Additional qualitative research
could be conducted on these various types of relationships: Couples in vanilla relationships who
only engage in SM play, those in D/s or M/s relationships, and those incorporating parts of each.
Other distinctions could be made along the lines of an interest in certain play implements. For
170
instance, Jason and Tammy mentioned demographic differences between rope people and
other SM players, such as higher education levels, as well as more passive dispositions. In this
way, qualitative research could be used to further reduce the SM population into discrete
subgroups for closer study.
Based on the couples interviewed for this study, SM appears as if it could be represented
by various continua in terms of degree of behavior and activity, such as dominance and
submission or pain and pleasure. In this way, SM might be likened to sexual orientation (e.g.,
Brown, 2008; Moser, 1999). Perhaps, like sexual orientation, everyone falls somewhere on
various spectra that comprise SM. Literature that addresses SM in this way could render the
subject more approachable and relevant to other sexuality and relationship research, as well as to
the public.
In addition, detailed information regarding the history of individuals who practice SM
would fill a large gap in the literature regarding the types of early experiences that are likely to
manifest in SM activity. One perspective might be to investigate the relationship between SM
activity and attachment style. This research could be performed using the Adult Attachment
Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996) or Adult Attachment Projective (George & West,
2001).
Notably, literature addressing the connection between masochism and early childhood
trauma (e.g., Novick & Novick, 1996; Warren, 1997) appears to focus on masochistic personality
features. It fails to distinguish masochistic personality structure from the enjoyment of bottoming
at play parties. Personality studies of SM practitioners could help to demystify this
overgeneralization.
Other helpful research would include investigations that measure the neurochemical
171
reaction to SM play. By studying the relationship between SM play and neurochemicals,

including endogenous opioids and dopamine and serotonin, these investigations would augment
bodies of literature not only on SM, but also on the nature of pain, chronic pain management,
self-injurious behavior, emotion regulation and the myriad effects of endogenous opioids and the
neurotransmitters involved in certain experiences of pain and pleasure. The implications of such
research could be vast.
Implications and Applications of the Study
Educational implications. Literature surrounding the topic of SM is largely discrepant.
Its controversial nature seems to render this topic exceptionally vulnerable to subjective
influence. In particular, little or no literature exists addressing the nature of couples who practice
SM within the context of a gratifying, monogamous relationship. One intent of this study was to
view SM from a psychological, non-pathologizing, yet unapologetic stance in order to broaden
the field of observation and the attendant implications and applications.
According to Barker et al. (2007b), the majority of mental health textbooks and training
courses do not mention SM, even on topics of sexuality. Several authors (e.g., Kolmes et al.,
2007; Kleinplatz & Moser, 2007) consider SM practitioners to be a sexual minority, the
treatment of whom require specific cultural competencies. Yet due in part to the dearth of
accepted norms and meanings surrounding SM, clinical standards have not been developed
(Kolmes et al., 2007). Thus, qualitative studies such as this are exceedingly relevant to a clinical
understanding of clients who engage in SM or raise such issues in therapy.
Social implications. This research highlights the fact that SM is not a single phenomenon.
It encompasses a plethora of behaviors and activities, and is pursued by different types of people
for different reasons. The fact that SM is multivariate is significant for both an effective
172
academic and clinical approach to SM and an understanding of the people who do it.
Implications of this study include: (a) the application of SM issues to monogamous heterosexual
couples, (b) the contribution of this study to the destigmatization of SM practitioners, and (c) the
addition of this research to the dearth of material available to clinicians looking to understand
SM.
Barker et al. (2007a) point out that, although SM has permeated popular culture in various
ways, Mainstream representations of BDSM are of imagery rather than of practices in context
(p. 199). This study reflects the range of SM activities that take place within the mainstream
context of a long-term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship. Two of the couples interviewed
for this project did not discover SM until after 20 years of marriage and raising children. This is
not the typical image of SM. Thus, this study debunks the notion that SM activity is reserved for
individuals who lead otherwise alternative lifestyles.
This study also suggests that the terms sadism and masochism do not describe many
people who practice SM. Aside from the issue of consent that each participant willingly granted
during play, most of the interviewees practice iterations of dominance and submission that
involve nurturance, affection, pleasure and eroticism. In this researchers opinion, to the extent
that sadistic and masochistic themes emerged, they were eclipsed by motifs suggesting SM as a
mechanism of radical dyadic attunement, interactive regulation, affect containment, and fantasy
exploration. By attempting to portray an accurate, detailed, objective, yet sensitive picture of real
couples who incorporate SM into their relationships, this research could help reveal aspects of
SM practice that are neither threatening nor dangerous.
Clinical implications. A clinician reading this study should glean several points: First, SM
is not limited to individuals who lead alternative or deviant lifestyles. This researchers findings
173
reveal that some SM couples are in long-term monogamous relationships in which they share
loving and committed bonds.
Second, SM does not define a couple. People enter the lifestyle for different reasons, and
incorporate it into their relationship to varying degrees. A couple that engages in kinky sex is not
homologous to one living in a 24/7 D/s relationship. Although both might admit to participating
in SM activity, it would behoove the clinician to inquire into the nature of the relationship, and
the meaning and motivation behind it for each partner.
Third, power in an SM relationship is not necessarily distributed along Dom/sub lines. In
two of the D/s partnerships in this study, the subs not only spearheaded the couples entry into
SM, but they also attempted to mold their partner into the kind of Dom they envisaged. Thus, the
clinician should not assume that a clients interest in experiencing SM as a sub or a Dom is a
reflection of personality. A sub may not be the least bit submissive, and a Dom may, in fact, be
quite obsequious.
Moreover, the specific SM structure between partners may not reflect the predominant
relationship dynamic. Among the potential variations, some couples identify with their SM role
characterologically, while others assume consistent Dom/sub roles only during play only and are
otherwise egalitarian. Still others enjoy playing either Dom or sub, particularly with play
partners outside of their relationship. Hence, the clinician would be advised against referring to a
clients preferred SM role as a touchstone of his or her fundamental relationship strategy.
In addition, this study demonstrates the diversity of underlying motivations for practicing
SM. While many individuals who engage in SM may have experienced early trauma, the ways in
which they might be using SM to achieve symptom relief or a greater sense of well-being
remains unclear. This study advocates viewing SM from a more complex perspective than
174
attributing a persons SM interests to a need to give or receive punishment, maltreatment or pain.

Other motivating factors should be considered, including the use of SM as transitional
phenomena (Winnicott, 1952/2005), a tool for interactive emotional regulation (e.g., Levine,
2010), a means of avoiding intolerable affect (e.g., Levine, 2010) and as a mechanism of
achieving a sense of attachment to a loving other when conventional relationships have failed.
Viewing SM as manifestations of these and possibly other internal experiences may render SM
phenomenon more clinically relevant and accessible.
Professional implications. Through this study, the author has learned to approach SM
practices from a multitude of angles. When she confronts this topic in the consulting room, she
will be prepared with a litany of possible themes for which to listen, including evidence of an
early marriage of pain and pleasure, denial of separation, manifestations of fear and rage,
unprocessed acute traumatic events, and the capacity to tolerate uncomfortable sensations and
affect. Such issues are not only relevant to those who engage in SM, but also to the mental health
of all couples and individuals.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the previous four chapters. It compared various themes of interest
revealed through this study to the research set forth in the literature review, as well as other
literature addressing (a) the nature of pain in SM, (b) whether the SM lifestyle can be considered
creative play or the denial of a separate, often ungratifying, external world (Winnicott,
1952/2005); (c) to what extent SM may be used for emotion regulation (e.g., Levine, 2010); (d)
the possible association between SM and repetition compulsion (e.g., Kumin, 1996); and (e) the
relationship of SM to intimacy and closeness. The chapter then addressed limitations of the
research, suggestions for future research, and implications of applications of the study.
175
References
Alison, L., Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N. K., & Nordling, N. (2001). Sadomasochistically oriented
behavior: Diversity in practice and meaning. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(1), 1-12.
Allan G (1980) A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage and the Family
42(1): 205210.
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Disorders (4th ed. text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
disorders (5th ed). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychoanalytic Association (1968). A glossary of psychoanalytic terms and concepts
(2nd ed.). B. E. Moore & B. D. Fine (Eds.). New York, NY: Yale University Press.
American Psychoanalytic Association (1990). Psychoanalytic terms and concepts (3rd ed.). B. E.
Moore & B. D. Fine (Eds.). New York, NY: Yale University Press.
Ani (2012). 50 Shades of Grey credited with return of bondage inspired swimsuits. News Track
India. New York, NY. June 2, 2012. Retrieved June 2, 2012.
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/07/02/156--50-Shades-of-Greycredited-with-return-of-bondage-inspired-swimsuits-.html
Ashley, K. J. (no date). BDSM A short Guide.. Retrieved November 11, 2012.
http://EzineArticles.com/4122205
Barker, M., Gupta, C., & Iantaffi, A. (2007a). The power of play: The potentials and pitfalls in
healing narratives of BDSM. In D. Landridge & M. Barker (Eds.). Safe, sane and
consensual (pp. 197-216). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Barker, M., Iantaffi, A, & Gupta, C. (2007b). Kinky clients, kinky counselling? The challenges
and potentials of BDSM. In, L. Moon (Ed.). Feeling queer or queer feelings: Radical
176
approaches to counselling sex, sexualities and genders (pp.106124). London, UK:

Routledge.
Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Masochism as escape from self. The Journal of Sex Research, 25(1),
28-59.
Ben-Ari, A., & Lavee, Y. (2007). Dyadic closeness in marriage: From the inside story to a
conceptual model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, (24)5, 627-644. doi:
10.1177/0265407507081451
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Introduction to the special section on structural analysis of social
behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64(6), 1203-1212.
Blos, P. (1991). Sadomasochism and the defense against recall of painful affect. Journal of
American Psychoanalytical Association, 39, 417-430.
Brown, L. (2008). Diversifying the definition of trauma. In Cultural competence in trauma
therapy: Beyond the flashback (pp. 95-111). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/11752-004
Byers, E. S., Purdon, C., & Clark, D. A. (1998). Sexual intrusive thoughts of college students.
Journal of Sex Research, 35, 197-205.
Cardena, E, & Carlson, E. (2011). Acute stress disorder revisited. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 7, 245-267.
Connely, F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher 19(5), 2-14.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cross, P. A. & Matheson, K. (2006). Understanding sadomasochism: An empirical examination
of four perspectives. In P. J. Klienplatz, & C. Moser, (Eds.). Sadomasochism: Powerful
pleasures (pp. 133-166). New York, NY: Harrington Park.
De Sade, M. (1966). The 120 days of sodom and other works. (A. Wainhouse & R. Seaver
Trans.). New York, NY: Grove. (Original work published 1904)
Dunbar N. E. & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in
interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 207233. Doi: 10.1177/0265407505050944.
Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1996). Can we research the private sphere? In: Morris, L and
Lyon, E.S. (Eds.). Gender relations in public and private: New research perspectives.
London: Palgrave Macmillan, 141155.
177
Easton, D. & Hardy, J. W. (2011). Radical ecstasy. Oakland, CA: Greenery Press.
Ellis, Havelock (1926). Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Vol III, Analysis of the Sexual
Impulse, Love and Pain, The Sexual Impulse in Women (2nd Ed., Revised and Enlarged
(Original work published 1903). In T. S. Weinberg (Ed.), S&M. Studies in dominance
and submission (pp. 37-40). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Falk, G. & Weinberg, T. S, (1983). Sadomasochism and popular western culture. In T. Weinberg
& G. W. L. Kamel (Eds.). S&M: Studies in sadomasochism (pp. 137-144). Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus.
Firestone, R. W., Firestone, L. A., & Catlett, J. (2006). Approaches to the etiology of sexual
dysfunctions and problems in sexual relating. In R. W. Firestone, L. A. Firestone, J.
Catlett (Eds.). Sex and love in intimate relationships (pp. 111-132). doi:10.1037/11260005
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In, J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol.VII (pp.
123-243). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1914). Remembering, repeating and working-through. In, J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.),
The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XVII
(pp. 147-156). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1915). Instincts and their vicissitudes. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol.XIV (pp. 111-140).
London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1919). A child is being beaten. In, J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition
of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XVII (pp.179-204). London:
Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1919). The economic problem of masochsim. In, J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XIX
(pp.158-170). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. In, J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. XVIII (pp. 3-64).
London: Hogarth.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Adult attachment interview. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Gosselin, C. C., Wilson, G. D., & Barrett, P. T. (1991). The personality and sexual preferences of
sadomasochistic women. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(1), 11-15.
178
Grossman, W. (1986). Notes on masochism: A discussion of the history and development of a

psychoanalytic concept. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 55(3), 379-413.
Haber, Matt (2013). A hush-hush topic no more. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/fashion/bondage-domination-and-kink-sexcommunities-step-intoview.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=136301418850Jd8keczxKfr8IDACq+YQ
Heaphy, B., & Einarsdottir, A. (2013). Scripting civil partnerships: Interviewing couples together
and apart. Qualitative Research, 13(53). doi: 10.1177/1468794112454997.
Heterosexual. (n.d.). In Miriam-Webster dictionary online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/heterosexual
Hewison, D. (2009) Power vs. love in sadomasochistic couple relationships. In C. F. Clulow
(Ed.), Sex, attachment and couple psychotherapy; psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 165184). London, UK: Karnac
.
Holmes, E. A., Brown, R. J., Mansell, W., Fearon, R. P., Hunter, E. C. M., Frasquilho, F., &
Oakley, D. A. (2005). Are there two qualitatively distinct forms of dissociation? A
review and some clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 1-23.
Holmes, J. (2010). Exploring in security: Towards an attachment-informed psychoanalytic
psychotherapy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Horowitz, A. V. & Wakefield, J. C. (2012). All we have to fear: Psychiatry's transformation of
natural anxieties into mental disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University.
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 1964. J. Stewart, concurring opinion.
James, E. L. (2011). Fifty shades of grey. London: Vintage.
Janus, S. S. & Janus, C. L. (1993). The Janus report on sexual behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kernberg, O. F. (1991). Aggression and love in the relationship of the couple. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 39(1), 45-70.
Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction (1996). Kinsey Scale. Retrieved
from kindseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html, February 26, 2014.
Kleinplatz, P. J. (2006). Learning from extraordinary lovers: Lessons from the edge. In P. J.
Klienplatz, & C. Moser (Eds.). Sadomasochism: Powerful pleasures (pp. 325-348). New
York, NY: Harrington Park.
Kleinplatz, P. J. & Menard, A. D. (2007). Building blocks toward optimal sexuality:
Constructing a conceptual model. The Family Journal, 15(72), 72-78.
179
doi:10.1177/1066480706294126.
Kleinplatz, P., & Moser, C. (2004). Toward clinical guidelines for working with BDSM clients.
Contemporary Sexuality, 38(6), 1-4.
Kleinplatz, P. J., & Moser, C. (2007). Is SM pathological? In D. Landridge & M. Barker (Eds.).
Safe, sane and consensual (pp. 55-62). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Knafo, D, & Jaffe, Y. (1984). Sexual fantasizing in males and females. Journal of Research in
Personality, 18, 541-567.
Kolmes, K., Stock, W., & Moser, C. (2006). Investigating bias in psychotherapy with BDSM
clients. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 301-324.
Krafft-Ebing, R. V. (1995). Psychopathia Sexualis (trans. Franklin S. Klaf.) In, T. S. Weinberg
(Ed.) S&M. Studies in dominance and submission (pp. 25-31). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Krueger, R. B. (2009). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 39(2), 325-345. doi 10.1007/s10508-009-9586-3 (Published online)
Krueger, R. B. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual masochism. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 39(2), 346-356. doi 10.1007/s10508-010-9613-4 (Published online)
Kumin, I. (1996). Pre-object relatedness: Early attachment and the psychoanalytic situation.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Langdridge, D. & Barker, M. (2007). Situating sadomasochism. In, D. Landridge & M. Barker
(Eds.). Safe, sane and consensual (pp. 3-9). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Leadbeater, C. (2012, July, 4). Fifty shades of grey: Seattle hotels offer guests the chance to
recreate the books steamy tales. Mail Online. Retrieved from http://
www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2168791/Fifty-Shades-Of-Grey-Seattle-hotels-offer-chance-recreate-best-sellers-steamy-tales.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.
Leech, N. L. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for
data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557-584.
Levine, P. A. (2010). In an unspoken voice. Berkley, CA: North Atlantic.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. A., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lovers Lane website (2012, November 12). Retrieved from http://www.loverslanestore.com
Maleson, F. G. (1984). The multiple meanings of masochism in psychoanalytic discourse.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 32, 325-356.
180
Mitchell, A. E., Castellani, A., M., Herrington, R. L., Joseph, J. I., Doss, B. D., & Snyder, D. K.
(2008). Predictors of intimacy in couples discussions of relationship injuries: An
observational study. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 21-29.
Mohr, J., Cook-Lyon-R & Kolchakian, M. (2010). Love imagined: Working models of future
romantic attachment in emerging adults. Personal Relationships, 17, 457-473.
Moser, C. (1999). The psychology of sadomasochism (S/M). Originally published In Wright, S.
(Ed.). SM classics. New York, NY: Masquerade Books, 47-61. Reproduced at
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/SM.htm
Moser, C. & Kleinplatz, P. J. (2006). Introduction: The state of our knowledge on SM. In P. J.
Klienplatz, & C. Moser, (Eds.). Sadomasochism: Powerful pleasures (pp. 1-15). New
York, NY: Harrington Park.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newmahr, S. (2010). Power struggles: Pain and authenticity in SM play. Symbolic Interaction,
33(3), 389-411.
Newmahr, S. (2011). Playing on the edge: Sadomasochism, risk, and intimacy. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University.
Novick, J. & Novick, K. K. (1996). Fearful symmetry. The development and treatment of
sadomasochism. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Novick, J. & Novick, K. K. (1997) Not for barbarians: An appreciation of Freuds A child is
being beaten. In E. S. Person (Ed.). On Freuds A Child is Being Beaten. London:
Yale University.
Powls, J. & Davies, J. (2012). A descriptive review of research relating to sadomasochism:
Considerations for clinical practice. Deviant Behavior, 33, 221-234.
Rathbone, J. (2001). Anatomy of masochism. New York, NY: Plenum.
Renaud, C. A. & Byers, E. S. (1999). Exploring the frequency, diversity and content of
university students positive and negative sexual cognitions. Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 8(1), 17-30.
Reis, H. T. & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S.W. Duck, D. F. Hay,
et al. (Eds.). Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions
(pp. 367-389). Oxford, England: Wiley.
Reissman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
181
Reuters (2012, July 3). Erotic novel fifty shades of grey breaks UK record. Books & Review.
Retrieved from http://www.booksnreview.com/articles/434/20120703/fifty-shades-greye-l-james-united-kingdom-sold-copies-breaks-record.htm
Richters, J., de Visser, R., Rissel, C., Grulich, A. & Smith, A. (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.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Sandnabba, N. K., Santtila, P, & Nordling, N. (1999). Sexual behavior and social adaptation
among sadomasochistically-oriented males. The Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 273-282.
Sandnabba, N. K., Santtila, P, Alison, & Nordling, N. (2002). Demographics, sexual behaviour,
family background and abuse experiences of practitioners of sadomasochistic sex: A
review of recent research. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 17(1), 39-55.
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect dysregulation and disorders of the self. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton.
Scott, D. J., Heitzeg, M. M., Koeppe, R .A., Stohler, C. S., & Zubieta, J. (2006). Variations in the
human pain stress experience mediated by ventral and dorsal basal ganglia dopamine
activity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(42), 10789-10795.
Seigel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflections and attunement in the cultivation of wellbeing. New York, NY: W. W Norton & Company.
Sisson, K. (2007). The cultural formation of S/M: History and analysis. In D. Landridge & M.
Barker (Eds.). Safe, sane and consensual, (pp.10-34). New York, NY: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in
psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Norton & Company.
Strack, S. & Lorr, M. (1990). Three approaches to interpersonal behavior and their common
factors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54(3&4), 782-790.
Sugarman, A. (2013). The centrality of beating fantasies and wishes in the analysis of a threeyear-old girl. Psychoanalytic Inquiry: A Topical Journal for Mental Health
Professionals.
Tannahill, R. (1980). Sex in history. New York, NY: Stein and Day.
Taylor, G. W. & Ussher, J. M. (2001). Making sense of SM: A discourse analytic account.
Sexualities, 4(3), 293-314.
182
Townsend, L. (1983). The leathermans handbook. New York, NY: Modernismo.

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Warren, C. S. (1997). The disavowel of desire: A relational view of sadomasochism. The Journal
of the Postgraduate Center for Mental Health, 14(1), 107-123.
Webster, L. & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Weinberg, T. S. (1987). Sadomasochism in the United States: A review of the recent sociological
literature. The Journal of Sex Research, 23(1), 50-69.
Weinberg, T. S. (1995). Sociological and social psychological issues in the study of
sadomasochism. In T. S. Weinberg (Ed.). S&M. Studies in dominance and submission
(pp. 289-302). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Weinberg, T. S. & Kamel, G. W. L. (1995). SM: An introduction to the study of
sadomasochism. In T. S. Weinberg (Ed.). S&M. Studies in dominance and submission.
(pp. 15-24). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Weinberg, T. S. & Kamel, G. W. L. (1983). SM: An introduction to the study of
sadomasochism. In T. S. Weinberg & G. W. L. Kamel (Eds.). SM. Studies in
sadomasochism (pp. 17-24). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J. & Moser, C. A. (1984). The social constituents of
sadomasochism. Social Problems, 31, 379-389.
Williams, D. J. (2006). Different (painful!) strokes for different folks: A general overview of
sexual sadomasochism (SM) and its diversity. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 13,
333-346.
Winnicott, D. W. 2005). Playing and reality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wiseman, J. (1996). SM101: A realistic introduction. San Francisco, CA: Greenery.
Wittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.
Wurmser, L. (2007). Torment me but dont abandon me: Psychoanalysis of the severe neuroses
in a new key. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Yalom, I. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
183
Appendix A
Definitions
Aftercare refers to the period after a scene during which the top (or dominant) comforts the
bottom (or submissive) (Williams, 2006). During this time, an intimate connection is savored
and strengthened (p. 339).
Bottom (see Top and Bottom, below)
Collar is the official symbol of submission to a dominant that is worn by a submissive or slave
(Williams, 2006).
Dominant (or Dom) is an individual who exercises control in the relationship (Williams, 2006).
Dominants are not necessarily sadists, or aggressive people. They can be shy and withdrawn
from personality perspective. (Williams, 2006).
Master is the term often describing a male dominant (Williams, 2006).
Mistress is the term for a female dominant (Williams, 2006).
Power exchange has been defined as the willing surrender of sensual control by a submissive
to a dominant (Brame, et al., 1996). Newmahr (2010) describes it as,
both the objective and dynamics of SM interactions. Its meaning is taken for granted in
the community, and it is difficult to identify a precise and universally accepted meaning.
There is a good deal of agreement that SM is intertwined with power and that power
exchange is the objective of most SM play. (p. 395)
Slave is the term for an individual who voluntarily engages in extensive submission to a
dominant (Williams, 2006, p. 338) (often to a greater extent than a submissive to a Dom).
Submissive (or sub) is the term for a person who voluntarily relinquishes control to a dominant
(Williams, 2006). Not all submissives are masochists, as some experience erotic gratification
from serving their dominant rather than feeling pain (Williams, 2006).
Subspace is a term that refers to an endogenous endorphin rush that is often experienced by a
bottom during a scene (Williams, 2006).
Switch is the term describing individuals who have significant needs of dominance and
submission and/or sexual sadism and masochism, and [who] often participate in either topping or
bottoming during a specific scene depending on which aspect needs to be expressed at that time
(Williams, p. 338).
Top and Bottom are individuals who participate in scene as a dominant and submissive,
184
respectively, but do not necessarily have a relationship independent of the scene, as would a
Dominant and submissive (Williams, 2006). Top and bottom are also used as verbs to describe
the activity of acting as a top or bottom. To top is to participate in an SM scene as the person
directing, and usually performing, action upon a person who is bottoming (Newmahr, 2010, p.
319).
Vanilla is a term describing sexual practices that are conventional or without a BDSM
orientation (Williams, 2006).
185
Appendix B
Letter to Participants
Re: Research study on heterosexual, monogamous, BDSM couples
Dear_____,
During our recent conversation at _________, you had expressed an interest in
participating in the captioned study which I am conducting for my doctoral dissertation.
Should you and your significant other elect to participate, we would meet at a local library, or
other mutually convenient location, where I would interview the two of you together for
approximately one to two hours. The interview would be a semi-structured, conversational style
discussion. I am interested in understanding the nature of your relationship, and the role of
BDSM within it.
Some of the questions I plan to ask you include: Tell me about your relationship. Please
describe a good day in your relationship. Please describe a bad day in your relationship. What
makes your relationship BDSM? . In addition, I am interested in any other stories, impressions,
beliefs and thoughts that you might wish to share in connection with this topic. My goal is to
understand your subjective experience as much as possible. In that regard, I will also invite you
to bring to the interview any accessories that hold special meaning in connection with the role of
BDSM in your relationship.
Should you choose to participate in the study, you will have an opportunity to contribute to
original research on this subject, to help de-stigmatize BDSM in the field of mental health, and
to educate the public about this important subject.
If you and your significant other would like to schedule an interview, or if you have any
questions at all, I invite you to contact me via email or phone at your earliest convenience
(lagree@mispp.edu; 248-219-2548). If you have questions regarding your rights as a participant
in this study, you may also contact Dr. Kevin Keenan, IRB Chair, at irbchair@mispp.edu.
Sincerely,
Lena Agree
186
Appendix C
Sample Guiding Questions for Interview
Tell me about your relationship.
Please describe a good day in your relationship.
Please describe a bad day in your relationship.
What makes your relationship BDSM?
What attracts you to BDSM?
Tell me about your respective BDSM roles.
How has your relationship evolved since you met?
How do you see your relationship evolving in the future?
Describe the first time you seriously thought about engaging in BDSM activity; what stimulated
your interest?
What would you consider to be the most critical events in your relationship?
What might happen if you removed BDSM from your relationship?
Tell me about any distress or disruption in your lives that might be due to practicing BDSM.
Tell me about any reluctance you have felt about being in a BDSM relationship.
Can you describe any regrets you have felt in terms of your BDSM activities (anything you have
done that you wish you had not, anything you have refused to do that you wish you had, etc.)
Debriefing questions:
How has this experience of being interviewed been for you?
Has anything shifted in you as a result of this interview?
When you are in bed tonight, how do you think you will feel about it?
Would you like to receive a copy of the finished study?
187
Appendix D
Participation Release Agreement
Michigan School of Professional Psychology
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
I, ___________________________________hereby agree to voluntary participation in the
research project on the experience of being in a monogamous, heterosexual, long-term BDSM
relationship, conducted by Lena Agree (the Researcher). I understand that the purpose of the
study is to explore the subjective experience of being in a long-term, heterosexual, romantic
relationship that both individuals regard as regularly incorporating BDSM. I also understand that
the focus of the study is couples who feel their relationship is successful and enjoyable.
The procedure will entail participating in a joint interview of both me and my partner . The
interview will take place at a location that is mutually agreed upon by me and the researcher. I
understand that my participation in the study will take one to two hours.
I understand that there are minimal physical, social, and economic risks associated with the
study. It is possible that I may experience discomfort in answering some of the Researchers
questions. I may also experience psychological discomfort as a result of exploring the issues
discussed, and increasing my own personal insight. In the event that I feel such discomfort, I am
free to discuss my concerns with the Researcher. Should I determine that I have personal
concerns that might benefit from counseling, I understand that the Researcher will not be
available for counseling sessions but will, at my request, provide a referral to a counseling
service which I may choose to pursue at my own expense.
In terms of benefits, I understand that participating in the study will help foster a better
understanding of my interest in BDSM and my relationship to my partner. Indirect benefits may
include contributing to the growing body of research on BDSM, and increasing public awareness
and acceptance of this phenomenon. When my participation is complete, I may request
information regarding the general findings of the research by contacting Lena Agree at
Lagree@mispp.edu.
I understand that the interview will be recorded, and later the interview will be transcribed into a
word processing document with no reference to my identity, and that the recording will be
destroyed after the completion of the project. Thus, any data or answers to questions will remain
confidential with regard to my identity. Any information derived from the research project that
personally identifies me will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without my separate
consent, except as specifically required by law. State law requires appropriate notification of
designated others in the event that I reveal that someone, including myself, is in danger of
serious harm, including but not limited to abuse, neglect, or threats of harm to myself or others.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from this study at
any time without jeopardizing my relationship with Lena Agree or the Michigan School of
Professional Psychology. In the event that either I or my partner withdraws from the study,
188
interview and our participation in the study will be terminated. This study has been approved by
the MiSPP IRB.
I understand that if I have any questions related to my participation in this study I may contact
Lena Agree at Lagree@mispp.edu. I may also contact the Institutional Review Board Chair at
the Michigan School of Professional Psychology, (248) 476-1122, or irbchair@mispp.edu.
I have read and understand the information provided above. My signature means that I agree to
participate in this study.
Participants Name:_______________________________
Participants Signature_______________________ Date ____/ _____/ _____
Researchers Name: Lena Agree
Researchers Signature: ______________________ Date: ____ / ____ /____
Appendix E
List of Themes, Critical Events
and Prominent Discursive Elements by Couple
Couple #1: Angela and Geoff (p. 70)
Relationship: 4 year dating; currently cohabitating; egalitarian relationship with
SM play; Male Dom, female switch
Themes:
1. SM as limited to recreation
2. Significance of SM play parties
a. Excitement
b. Sense of grounding
c. SM education
d. Opportunity to play with others in safe environment
3. SM as serving emotional functions: Increased confidence; outlet for anger
4. SM play as a mechanism of attunement
Critical events: During interview couple realized mutual desire for scheduled play
Discursive elements: Play- 30 instances; Fun 26 instances
Couple #2: Sam and Jen (p. 77)
Relationship: 1 year dating; currently cohabitating; egalitarian relationship with SM
egalitarian play
Themes:
1. Trust that partner will respect limitations
2. SM as serving an emotional function: Increased safety in the relationship
3. Use of SM solely to express care and create pleasure
4. Use of SM play to increase resilience
5. Use of SM play to satisfy sensory needs
6. Importance of symbolism
Critical events: Initial encounter and recognition of mutual interest in rope
Discursive elements: Rope 46 instances; Trust 20 instances in first hour
189
190
Couple #3: Sabrina and Barry (p. 83)

Relationship: 5 years; married for 1 year; Male Dom, female sub, 24/7 D/s
relationship
Themes:
1. Extreme version of traditional relationship
2. Valuing immediate communication of problems
3. D/s complimenting existing compatibility
4. Concerns regarding boundaries
5. Divergent views regarding relation of D/s to self
6. The question of control
Critical events: None
Discursive elements: None
Couple #4: Diane and Reggie (p. 92)
Relationship: 6 year relationship; currently cohabitating and engaged; Male Dom, female
sub, 24/7 D/s relationship
Themes:
1. Relationship as negotiation of needs
2. SM as serving emotional functions: Presence, attunement and emotional
containment
3. SM play as sensation rather than pain
4. No secrets
5. Importance of SM community
Critical events: She gave him relationship ultimatum
Discursive elements: Need 49 instances
Couple #5: Fendi and Josh (p. 98)
Relationship: 5 year relationship; married for 1 year; Male Dom, female sub 24/7 D/s
Daddy-little girl relationship
Themes:
1. Full integration of D/s lifestyle into relationship
2. SM as serving an emotional function: Exchange of vulnerability for control
3. Attraction to structure and transparency of D/s
4. Importance of attention and attunement
191

Discursive elements: Relationship 56 instances
Couple #6: Tammy and Jason (p. 104)
Relationship: 30 year marriage; egalitarian during the week; Male Dom, female
M/s relationship on weekends
switch
Themes:
1. Importance of SM community
2. Rope as a shared learned endeavor
3. Going outside the relationship to satisfy emotional needs
Critical events: The couples first experimentation with bondage kit she purchased
Discursive elements: Rope 81 instances
Couple #7: Blake and Karina (p. 109)
Relationship: 30 year marriage; Female Dom, male switch M/s relationship in
progress
Themes:
1. Seeking mentors to help adopt M/s lifestyle
2. Different bases of attraction to SM
3. Going outside the relationship to satisfy unmet needs
4. Trust and commitment as integral to success
Couple #8: John and Cindy (p. 112)
Relationship: 26 year marriage; egalitarian relationship with Male Dom, female
SM play
Themes:
1. Recognizing and questioning the perils of the lifestyle
2. Setting boundaries
a. Creating rules
switch

b. Constant conversation
c. Checking each other
d. Taking breaks
3. Playing with each other versus playing with others
Criticial events: John whipped Cindy at her request in the backyard
192

The Experience of Being in A Long Term, Monogamous, Heterosexual Relationship That Regularly Incorporates BDSM

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Experience of Being in A Long Term, Monogamous, Heterosexual Relationship That Regularly Incorporates BDSM

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Running head: MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

The Experience of Being in a

UMI Number: 3635386

All rights reserved

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

This dissertation was approved by the doctoral committee:

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER II - Review of Literature ............................................................................................ 19

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Limitations of the Research ............................................................................................ 168

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

reasonably be referred to as SM couture.

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

The definitions of sadism, masochism and sadomasochism (e.g., Grossman,

The relationship between sadism and masochism (e.g., Freud, 1919).

The differences between healthy or playful, and unhealthy or pathological,

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Clinical Relevance. SM relationships are clinically relevant on several levels: (a) SM is a

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

In contrast, domineeringness is an individuals unilateral attempt to control another

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Experience. The APA Dictionary of Psychology (VandenBos, 2007) defines experience

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Although Ellis (1926) seemed to frame sadomasochism as non-cruel, loving, and

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

copulation, or childbirth. However, he noticed a regressive aspect to it as well, in that many of

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Consensuality clearly distinguished SM behaviors from violence for each of the

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Participants also described SM as a transcendental experience, leading to a heightened

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

six features: presence, authenticity, emotional connection, intimacy, communication, and

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Krueger (2010) acknowledged the healthy social and psychological functioning of SM

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL BDSM RELATIONSHIPS