Literature review for “The Social Perception of Alternative Sexuality with Particular Reference to BDSM”

a printer-friendly version is available here

This review demonstrates the need for investigation into the definition and practice of BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, sadism, submission and masochism), as a sexual identity and an increasingly visible emergent culture and mainstream heterosexual option, as seen by the practitioners themselves. It shows the origins of confusion in an academic milieu constrained by disciplinary boundaries and historical definitions, Weinberg (2006) and argues for recognition of a harmless and often therapeutic form of sophisticated erotic play. Cross (1998)

“There is a small, but increasing, body of research investigating the experiences and understandings of those in the SM community”. Ritchie and Barker (2005 p227)

“To examine sexual attitudes usually requires more than intellectual assessment: it first needs exposure, practice, and hands-on experience” Henkin (1989)

No-one has yet been able to study real-life BDSM practice between sexually sophisticated, sane, creative and intelligent heterosexual individuals in the U.K. As a trusted participant-observer of the BDSM community, the reviewer is ideally placed to do just that.

“SM, S/M, BDSM, D/S and Leather: each has a slightly different meaning. For simplicity we will refer to them all as SM” Kleinplatz (2006 p.1)

Of 20 major research papers published on SM in 2006, only 5 referred to BDSM. Even there, the acronym was used interchangeably with SM. The articles were published either in special editions of the Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review or of Journals of Homosexuality, reinforcing the perception of BDSM as something practised by minority sexual cultures, rather than the increasingly prevalent heterosexual orientation reported in the New Kinsey Report. Reinisch and Beasley (1990)

But SM is only one aspect of BDSM and is a term used by non-practitioners. Its “common sense” connotation of non-consensual abuse, is categorically refuted by the BDSM community. Weiss (2006) Wiseman (2000) Miller and Devon (1995) Brame(1997) The essence of sadomasochism is the overwhelming of one's senses - emotionally more than physically. “Active sexual masochism has little to do with pain and everything to do with the search for emotional pleasure” Ellis. (1933)

The selected papers support a need for the redefinition, depathologisation and decriminalisation of BDSM and include “Testimony from Physicians and Psychiatrists for the S/M Policy Reform Statement”(2006).

Here, anthropologist Paul Gebhard, (1968), pointing to sadomasochism's cultural roots, and the futility of defining a widespread and diffuse sexual practice by reference to a few "extreme" examples, states that, far from being a manifestation of a base instinct, sadomasochism requires a considerable amount of intelligence. SM practices are only prevalent in literate societies full of symbolic meanings. One of the most direct ways to move toward integration, is to explore sexual personas. “Consensual erotic power play is not a psychiatric disorder. It is a form of sexual pleasure. As a path of psychological and spiritual development it can be the evidence and experience of triumph over childhood adversity.” Henkin, (1989 and 1992)

Some papers quoted are summaries of earlier historical and theoretical arguments, e.g. Sissons (2005) and Weinberg (2006).

Recent work, Cross (1998)and Hoff (2006) spotlights empirical and ethnographic studies of participants’ own perceptions of their practices. But much of this was conducted by questionnaire and in cyberspace where there is no way of objectively confirming the information volunteered. There is consensus that more work is needed, particularly participant observation of real-life BDSM practice. Weinberg (2006) Cross (1998)

Twenty years ago, SM was something dark and mysterious. Today, representations of BDSM are everywhere. Weiss (2006) “We are in a period when bondage, discipline, dominance, sadism, submission and masochism, (BDSM) are viewed as simultaneously pathological and harmless, evil and inane.” Smith (2006 p.177)

Despite this cultural visibility, the history of SM practice and its relation to the larger culture remain largely unstudied.

Three distinct SM communities, gay, lesbian and heterosexual, co-exist today as part of the larger SM culture However, a paucity of data exists regarding the development and characteristics of heterosexual SM communities and culture. Sisson (2006) employed a cultural, analytical approach, demonstrating that historically, the gay leather SM culture emerging in 1930 glorified confrontational male sexuality stripped of “niceness” and depersonalised sexual partners. This SM symbolism and dominant/submissive role-play was later linked to Nazi style abuse, especially by feminists who saw SM as perpetuating abusive patriarchal behaviour patterns.

Feminist psychoanalyst Benjamin (1988) claims it is a form of psychopathology, a dangerous, abusive practice that apes repressive patriarchy and damages its practitioners. This outdated point of view is held by many feminist and lesbian researchers as well as practising psychotherapists. Participants reported that most psychotherapists showed negative, uninformed and judgmental attitudes towards SM practice” Hoff (2003)

Many individuals involved in SM keep their activities secret because if they did not, they would have to deal with social penalties ranging from being socially ostracized to being charged with breaking the law. If individuals involved in SM seek out psychotherapy for one reason or another, they often feel uncomfortable disclosing their sexual practices to their therapists because those practices are treated as pathology (Moser, 1988).

Moser asserts the focus in academia and in medicine has been on the importance of pain as source of sexual gratification for either sadists or masochists, ignoring participants who report that they enjoy either role equally. According to participants, both physical and psychological behaviours emphasise the eroticism of transfer of power from submissive to dominant partner. Kleinplatz and Moser, (2005)

Social psychologists understand SM as a function of cultural, political, personal, and historical factors. Baumeister (1988) believes that masochism represents a kind of "temporary holiday" from high-level self-awareness.

Prior to 1886 SM type practices were considered neither sick nor shameful, when Krafft-Ebing linked sadomasochistic desire with “perversion of the instinct” and considered it to be a disease. In 1983 the American Psychoanalytic Association could not establish what masochism was, yet SM is still listed in ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases) and the DSM-IV-R (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Diseases, where, medically, there is no difference between consensual SM sex and spouse abuse. This ignores evidence that SM devotees deliberately manipulate various forms of stimulation in role-play and that a consensual scene where the submissive's pleasure is carefully planned is not an aggressive act. Thompson (1994)

“Sadomasochism is only violence by metaphor. A closer metaphor would be to view it as theatre” British Law Commission (1995)

“SM is particularly liable to being stigmatized in societies uneasy with sexual pleasure for its own sake.” Kleinplatz and Moser (2005 p.258) argue that normal, morally approved, heterosexual relationships are just as likely to meet diagnostic criteria of obsession and emotional disturbance especially during the period of early courtship and honeymoon and that therefore clinical integrity requires SM to be removed from future editions of the DSM and ICD. (Ibid)

©Sylvia Farley 2007