PREDICTORS OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

________________________________________
Tina Zawacki, Ph.D., Chair
________________________________________
Rebecca Weston, Ph.D.
________________________________________
Mary McNaughton-Cassill, Ph.D.
Accepted: _________________________________________
Dean, Graduate School

Copyright 2016 Alexander B. Wang

All Rights Reserved

PREDICTORS OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

by

ALEXANDER B. WANG, B.A.

THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Faculty of
The University of Texas at San Antonio
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO

College of Liberal and Fine Arts
Department of Psychology
May 2016

ProQuest Number: 10108490

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.

ProQuest 10108490
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation towards Dr. Zawacki, Dr. McNaughton-Cassill,
and Dr. Weston for the invaluable support, patience, and criticism that they have given to me
throughout the writing process. I would also like to thank Dr. Baumann for helping me with the
early drafts of my paper. Finally, I would like to thank for my parents and my grandmother for
their substantial financial and moral support throughout the course of my masters degree.

May 2016
iv

PREDICTORS OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN BDSM RELATIONSHIPS

Alexander B. Wang, M.S.
The University of Texas at San Antonio, 2016

Supervising Professor: Tina Zawacki, Ph.D.

The present study investigated the association between characteristics of BDSM

(bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadomasochism) relationships and
relationship satisfaction. We predicted that relationship characteristics such as higher
communication, respect for ones partner, sexual compatibility, and motivation to participate in
BDSM activities will be associated with higher interpersonal satisfaction. Furthermore, we
predicted main and interactive effects for sex and BDSM role. Simultaneous multiple regression
revealed that the relationship characteristics model significantly predicted interpersonal
satisfaction. However, no effects of sex or BDSM role were found. Implications and further
directions are discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Chapter Two: Method ....................................................................................................................13
Participants .........................................................................................................................13
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................13
Measures ............................................................................................................................14
Chapter Three: Results ...................................................................................................................17
Chapter Four: Discussion ...............................................................................................................19
Appendices.....................................................................................................................................25
References ......................................................................................................................................43
Vita

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1

Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................26

Table 2

Scale Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Statistics ...................................27

Table 3

Bivariate Correlations ............................................................................................27

Table 4

Summary of Sexual Satisfaction Regression Coefficients (GMSEX) ...................28

Table 5

Summary of Relationship Satisfaction Regression Coefficients (GMREL)..........28

Table 6

Cross-tabulation of Sex and BDSM Role ..............................................................28

Table 7

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance ....................................................28

Table 8

Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance for Sex ............................................29

Table 9

Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance for BDSM Role ..............................29

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1

Relationship Satisfaction, Gender, and BDSM Role .............................................25

viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Bondage & discipline, domination & submission, and sadomasochism (BDSM) is an
umbrella term for a wide range of atypical sexual behaviors which often involve power exchange
or the exchange of intense sensations between intimate partners (Taormino, 2012; Wiseman,
1998). BDSM includes relatively innocuous behavior such as spanking, blindfolding,
handcuffing, and role play as well as more intense behavior such as consensual sexual slavery,
flogging, electrocution, and suspension. In general, BDSM is usually defined in opposition to
conventional sexual behavior (e.g. kissing, fondling, penetrative intercourse) and often
involves one partner taking on an active BDSM role (e.g. Dominant, Top) and one partner
taking on a receptive BDSM role (e.g. Submissive, Bottom) during intimate contact
(Chivers, Roy, Grimbos, Cantor & Seto, 2014; Stockwell, Walker, & Eshlemen, 2010).
Oftentimes people who alternate between active and receptive roles under various circumstances
will identify as a switch. The term kink may be used interchangeably with BDSM or as an
umbrella term for unconventional sexual behaviors (Rehor, 2015).
In the current literature, BDSM is a poorly-understood psychological phenomenon;
relatively few studies address the topic of BDSM. In clinical practice, psychotherapists with
BDSM clients have often expressed mixed opinions of BDSM and reported a lack of
understanding of BDSM practices in their role as a therapist (Kelsey, Stiles, Spiller, & Diekhoff,
2013; Kolmes, Stock & Moser, 2006). Further complicating this issue is the stigma towards
BDSM, which is seen as indicative of moral or psychological deviance among the general public
(Weiss, 2008). Few published studies attempt to understand the characteristics of relationships
that involve BDSM activities. In fact, the majority of BDSM research and interest in psychology

focuses on either the pathologization of BDSM or demographic comparisons between people

who practice BDSM and people who have conventional sex.
Early studies of alternative sexualities by psychologists conceptualized BDSM as being
associated with psychopathology (Davison & Neale, 1990; Gosselin & Wilson, 1980). The term
sadomasochism (later SM) was coined by Krafft-Ebing and was later adopted by Freud. Both
Krafft-Ebing and Freud viewed sadomasochism through a reductionist medical paradigm,
asserting that SM was an aberrant condition that required treatment. Early editions of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual labeled sadism and masochism as sexual deviations alongside
homosexuality, transvestism, and pedophilia (Bezreh, Weinberg, & Edgar, 2012). Later, the
DSM IV-TR changed these diagnoses such that sadism, masochism, fetishism, and paraphilias
were not clinically significant unless they involve a nonconsenting person, or the sexual urges
or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty (American Psychological
Association, 2000). The current edition of the DSM has further reduced these diagnoses to
paraphilic disorders which are only diagnosable if they result in personal distress, involve
psychological injury, distress, or death, or involve nonconsensual sex (American
Psychological Association, 2013). Although this reclassification in the DSM has ruled out
BDSM participation as an ipso facto disorder, the widespread social stigma associated with
BDSM (Bezreh et al., 2012) and the paucity of understanding of BDSM by therapists (Kelsey et
al., 2013) may have a continuing negative impact on how psychologists and laypersons alike
approach this subject. Furthermore, the term sadomasochism is used interchangeably in
literature with clinical, criminal, and nonclinical samples alike, often with no distinction between
people who engage in consensual BDSM within a happy relationship and people who engage
nonconsensual BDSM to the detriment of others (Baughman, Jonason, Veselka, & Vernon, 2014;
2

Larue, Schmidt, Eggers, Imhoff, & Schonbrodt, 2014; Seto, Lalumiere, Harris, Chivers, 2012).
As a result, much literature about BDSM defines sadomasochism itself as sexual violence
without qualifying the differences between groups of people who engage in BDSM.
Recent efforts by researchers have cast BDSM in a more favorable light, finding little or
no support for the previous pathologization of BDSM by the medical establishment (Connolly,
2006; Richters, de Visser, Rissel, Grulich, & Smith, 2008; Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013).
Richters et al. conducted an influential study over a large sample (n = 19,307) of respondents to a
national survey in Australia, where 1.8% of sexually active people reported engaging in some
BDSM activity. Overall, they found no differences in pathology between BDSM practitioners
and conventional respondents. Instead, BDSM practitioners were less likely to report distress on
the Kessler-10 psychosocial distress scale than the conventional respondents. Similarly,
Wismeijer and van Assen found that BDSM practitioners scored somewhat higher on the WHO5 Well-being Index than the non-BDSM control group. Currently, no scientific consensus has
emerged to explain these effects; higher self-reported well-being may potentially be due to
BDSM activities or differences in sex or personality. For instance, Connolly found higher rates
of narcissism among BDSM practitioners compared to a control group, which may have
implications for self-esteem and well-being. Damon (2002) found dominant heterosexual men
may have greater self-esteem and lower sexism than either submissive or conventional
heterosexual men. This effect may have occurred due to the role itself or due to violation of
masculinity norms. Collectively, these studies question the previous negative assumptions about
BDSM. Although these findings are not uniformly positive with regard to BDSM and health
outcomes, they allow for the possible interpretation that BDSM activities are simply a less
common or unusual sexual preference which are not well-understood at the current moment.
3

However, existing studies have not examined the influence of relationship skills on relationship
satisfaction among individuals in BDSM relationships. As such, these studies have limited
applicability in understanding BDSM relationship dynamics or predicting happy BDSM
relationships.
Qualitative investigation into BDSM has found promising emergent themes on the
expression of BDSM desire and the construction of consensual relationships. Common
discursive structures include strict attention to consensuality, a temporary imbalance of power in
the form of dominance and submission (often referred to as power exchange), role playing,
sexual arousal, and mutual definition (Moser & Kleinplatz, 2007; Taylor & Ussher, 2001;
Weinberg, Williams, & Moser, 1984). Consensuality requires that all participants in BDSM play
give their informed consent throughout the agreed-upon activities. Consent and awareness of
physical and emotional boundaries are often maintained by prior negotiation and active
communication before, during, and after play. Oftentimes, consensuality is maintained through
the explicit use of a safeword, a phrase which unambiguously revokes consent to all BDSM
activities. Power exchange involves one partner taking on a dominant role and another partner
taking on a submissive role, whereby the dominant partner gives the submissive partner intense
sensations (e.g. flagellation, bondage, etc.) enacts a particular role play. BDSM often involves
sexual arousal, but does not necessarily require genital contact in order to enact (Richters et al.,
2008); in fact, purely psychological role play may involve no physical contact whatsoever
(Hebert & Weaver, 2015). Finally, BDSM is also mutually defined; both partners determine the
limits and boundaries of the BDSM context (e.g. a submissive is not necessarily submissive to
complete strangers, masochists dont necessarily enjoy stubbing their toes, etc.).

Altogether, this ethical framework enables many BDSM practitioners to engage in

physically and emotionally intense sexual activities while ensuring that it remains safe, sane,
and consensual (abbr. SSC; Wiseman, 1998). Other such phrases, such as risk-aware consensual
kink (RACK), have also emerged following intracommunity discussion on whether certain
activities were truly safe or not (Taormino 2012). Regardless, these phrases reflect decades of
discourse regarding the ethics of BDSM. Far from being pathological, themes of consent and
communication appear in both happy conventional and happy BDSM relationships. In fact,
BDSM is commonly constructed as an adult game or play whereby the mutual pleasure,
enjoyment and expression of desire are central elements of BDSM, even in cases where extreme
fantasies are preferred (Faccio, Casini, & Cipolletta, 2014). The structures and practices present
in these uncommon relationships have received less scrutiny than the unusual trappings of these
relationships, when these very qualities may be central to understanding why BDSM may be a
powerful positive influence on some peoples lives.
Although this body of research has been productive in establishing groundwork and
dispelling unfounded beliefs about BDSM, there are several important limitations to these
previous studies. First, most, if not all studies begin from the implicit assumption that BDSM
relationships are necessarily different from conventional relationships; even studies which
deliberately test and refute prior problematic assumptions frame their research questions in such
a way that the differences between normal and alternative practices are the focus of the
study, rather than the common constituents of each. While not directly problematic in itself, this
practice still reflects the general tendency of institutions to view alternative sexualities as an
other which deviates from the unquestioned normal sexualities. Rather than seeking an
understanding of why alternative relationships are different and the consequences of their
5

differences, alternative relationships must justify their existence to institutions which hold the
discursive power to medicalize and pathologize different ways of being and relating. Second,
distinctions between happy and unhappy BDSM relationships remain relatively unknown.
Although there is a growing conceptual understanding of relationship structures in BDSM, there
are no studies which quantify the relationship between BDSM dynamics and relationship
satisfaction. As a result, there are few ways to assess and predict relationship satisfaction which
adequately account for the consensual power exchange elements that are often mixed with
negative conceptualizations of sadomasochism. In other words, existing literature focuses on the
sexual elements of BDSM (e.g. whipping, bondage, humiliation) without regard to relationship
qualities also present in normative relationships (e.g. communication, respect, compatibility).
Predictors of positive and negative relationship outcomes of normative relationships may also
apply to BDSM relationship outcomes, and traditional models of social relationships may better
explain relationship outcomes than differences in sexuality.
Social exchange theory posits that people aim to maximize their rewards and minimize
their costs in social interactions (Sabatelli, 1988). People choose to participate in a particular
relationship because it provides a satisfactory level of outcomes compared to other available
relationships. These outcomes are frequently evaluated in terms of a persons perception of their
partners own attributes (e.g. physical attractiveness) and the quality of their relationship (e.g. the
levels of love experienced). Additionally, outcomes are evaluated with reference to a persons
comparison level (CL), which represents the outcomes a person believes they are entitled to
hold; outcomes falling above or below a subjective standard determine a persons satisfaction
with a relationship. A persons overall satisfaction with a relationship may rise and fall as their
comparison level changes, even if the rewards and costs stay the same. Interpersonal satisfaction
6

is typically measured in terms of global sexual satisfaction and global relationship satisfaction
(Lawrance, Byers, & Cohen, 2011), which are in turn evaluated with respect to other
characteristics of interpersonal relationships.
Communication has frequently been associated with the interpersonal satisfaction
(Holman & Jarvis, 2003; Byers, 2005; Mark & Jozkowski, 2013). For example, MacNeil and
Byers (2009) found that more communication is associated with greater relationship satisfaction
in heterosexual couples. Sexual self-disclosure was associated with greater sexual satisfaction. In
line with social exchange theory, it was theorized that disclosure of sexual preferences allows
couples to understand and reconcile their disparate sexual preferences, thereby facilitating couple
interactions which maximize sexual rewards and minimize sexual costs for both partners.
Similarly, Holman and Jarvis (2003) found that among four couple-conflict types, positive
communication and relationship satisfaction were lowest among couples who were hostile to
each other during conflict and highest among couples who validated each other during conflict.
Litzinger and Gordon (2005) also found that marital satisfaction was independently predicted by
communication and sexual satisfaction. Interestingly, when communication was high, sexual
satisfaction did not contribute to marital satisfaction. However, marital satisfaction was higher
when communication was low and sexual satisfaction was high than when both predictors were
low, suggesting that sexual satisfaction may somewhat compensate for the absence of
communication. Since communication is a frequent topic of discussion in BDSM discourse
(Taormino, 2012), it stands to reason that communication may be pertinent to BDSM
relationship outcomes, especially when viewed through social exchange theory.
Sexual compatibility may also be a significant factor in relationship satisfaction. In line
with social exchange theory, sexual compatibility may reflect the amount of reward and cost to
7

be considered in a close relationship; even if communication in a couple is good, a very low

overall amount of sexual compatibility may result in low sexual reward and high cost. Mark,
Milhausen, & Maitland (2013) examine the association of both perceived and actual sexual
compatibility on relationship satisfaction. Perceived sexual compatibility was significantly
associated with both sexual and relationship satisfaction. Interestingly, sexual compatibility was
more predictive for both types of mens satisfaction and accounted for more variance in sexual
satisfaction (66% in the womens model and 75% in the mens model) than relationship
satisfaction (20% of the variance in womens model and 27% in the mens model). Like
communication, sexual compatibility may be especially salient for people in BDSM
relationships, as BDSM activities are numbered in the hundreds or more (Rehor, 2015).
Respect is another central characteristic of relationships. Hendrick, Hendrick, and Logue
(2010) conceptualize respect as having two components: equality/mutuality and
caring/supportiveness. Equality/mutuality describes horizontal positive reciprocal behaviors
between individuals of relatively equal standing and reflects a theme of dialogue.
Caring/supportiveness, by contrast, describes vertical behaviors intended to be considerate and
elevate the standing of another and reflects themes of empowerment, healing, curiosity, attention,
and self-respect. Similar to the other relationship qualities, respect was associated with selfdisclosure (i.e. communication) and relationship satisfaction (Frei & Shaver, 2002; Hendrick &
Hendrick, 2006). Although the connection to social exchange theory was not made explicit in
these findings, the implication is that mutual respect may be a reward in and of itself. In the
context of BDSM relationships, respect towards ones partner is another practice that is
emphasized in discourse surrounding BDSM, even when degrading or humiliating kinks are
involved (Taormino, 2012). Characteristically respecting ones partner regardless of their BDSM
8

role may be a key distinction in predicting satisfaction in BDSM relationships. However, respect
remains a relatively understudied concept in relationship literature, and these ideas are yet to be
explored.
Motivation to participate in BDSM may also be an important determinant of relationship
satisfaction. Until recently, academics and laypersons alike assumed that women did not
participate in BDSM for their own pleasure, but instead were pressured by their male dominant
partners. (Breslow, Evans, & Langley, 1986; as cited by Rehor, 2015). Contrary to this belief,
Rehor (2015) found in an international sample of women from kink communities (n = 1,580) that
most of the women participated in or watched any of 126 sexual or BDSM activities for their
own enjoyment. For instance, 86% of women participated in moderate bondage for their own
enjoyment, 77% participated in physical humiliation, and 75% participated in whipping. Yost
and Hunter (2012) describe how BDSM practitioners related their motivation to participate in
BDSM through essentialist and constructionist narratives. Participants reported intrinsic
motivations through essentialist narratives (e.g. they felt BDSM was a natural, core part of their
sexuality), extrinsic motivations through constructionist narratives (e.g. they were introduced to
BDSM by others), and neither (e.g. they didnt describe their motivation with intrinsic or
extrinsic terms). Additionally, a small number of participants described being introduced to
BDSM by others, but then experiencing an interest as an essential part of themselves (called
socialized essentialism). Men were somewhat more likely to view their participation as an
essential expression of their sexuality, while women were more likely to view their desires as a
socially constructed. Findings of differences in motivation to participate in BDSM challenge
harmful stereotypes about BDSM practitioners and demonstrate that motivation exists on a

continuum. However, these studies fall short of interpreting BDSM motivation within existing
motivational frameworks.
Self-determination theory (SDT; Knee, Hadden, Porter, & Rodriguez, 2013) offers a
promising explanation for different motivations to participate in BDSM. SDT posits that being
self-determined means that ones actions are relatively autonomous, freely chosen, and fully
endorsed by the person rather than coerced or pressured by external forces or internal
expectations (p. 307). A key feature of SDT is that motivation exists on a continuum ranging
from intrinsic to extrinsic, rather than an intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy. This continuum reflects
the degree to which the self regulates involvement. SDT identifies kinds of behavioral regulation
ranging from least to most self-determined: amotivation, external regulation, introjected
regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Amotviation
describes lack of self-regulation to participate in an activity (e.g. Jack doesnt know why hes
dating Jill). External regulation involves contingent rewards or punishments for behavior (e.g.
Jack is dating Jill because her family is wealthy). Introjected regulation occurs when internal
pressures such as shame and guilt arise (e.g. Jack is dating Jill because he feels guilty). Identified
regulation requires acceptance and valuing the target behavior as part of ones own identity (e.g.
Jack is dating Jill because he feels he chooses to be and values the commitments he made with
her). Integrated regulation occurs when behaviors resonate with higher order or overarching
identities (e.g. Jack endorses a principle to grow, and his relationship with Jill helps him adhere
to this principle). Finally, intrinsic motivation occurs when a behavior is completely selfdetermined only for the innate satisfaction of the behavior itself (e.g. Jack is dating Jill because
of the many wonderful experiences theyve shared together). External regulation and introjected
regulation are conceptually grouped as controlled motivations, while identified, integrated, and
10

intrinsic motivation are conceptually grouped as autonomous motivations. (Gaine & La Guardia,
2009). Having more self-determined reasons for being in a relationship has been linked with
higher relationship satisfaction (Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990). Similarly, selfdetermined motivation for specific relationship activities (e.g. sexual intercourse) accounted for
unique variance in relationship well-being (Gaine & La Guardia, 2009). Altogether, motivation
for specific relationship activities and general motivation to be in a relationship accounted for
80% of the variance in relationship satisfaction. If BDSM relationships follow general models of
relationships, then it follows that motivation to participate in BDSM activities may also predict
relationship satisfaction in BDSM relationships. Additionally, psychosocial effects from BDSM
role differences (Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013) and gender differences (Richters et al., 2008)
may be explained by differences in motivation (Yost & Hunter, 2012). For instance, male
dominants may be more likely to report positive outcomes due to relatively autonomous
motivation to participate in BDSM compared to female submissives. Consequently, variation in
interpersonal satisfaction due to apparent differences in sex or BDSM role may in fact be due to
variation in motivation.
The current study investigated the association among communication, respect for ones
partner, sexual compatibility, motivation to participate in BDSM activities, and relationship
satisfaction. Social exchange theory predicts that interpersonal satisfaction increases as a
function of increasing rewards and decreasing gains, while self-determination theory predicts
that overall relationship satisfaction will increase as motivation to participate in a relationship
becomes increasingly self-determined (i.e. intrinsically motivated). If BDSM relationships
resemble relationships in general, then one or both models will likely explain variance in
relationships satisfaction. Additionally, sex and BDSM role were examined as factors related to
11

relationship outcome. Although differences in sex and BDSM role were detected in psychosocial
measures for previous studies (Damon, 2002; Richters, et al., 2008; Wismeijer & van Assen,
2013), it was not clear whether these factors would have an effect on interpersonal satisfaction.
Consequently, the additive and interactive effects of sex and BDSM role on interpersonal
satisfaction were investigated.
Based on the literature reviewed above, we hypothesized the following effects:
1. Higher sexual communication, respect towards ones partner, sexual compatibility, and
motivation for relationship activities (MRA) are associated with higher overall
interpersonal satisfaction with intimate partners.
2. Dominants are more likely to report interpersonal satisfaction in relationships than
switches or submissives, while switches are more likely to be report interpersonal
satisfaction in relationships than submissives. Men are expected to report more
interpersonal satisfaction than women (see Figure 1).

12

CHAPTER TWO: METHOD

Participants
Participants were self-identified BDSM practitioners (i.e. Do you have an interest in
BDSM?) who are currently in a relationship that involves some level of BDSM (i.e. Are you
currently in a relationship that involves BDSM?). Participants were recruited from social
networking sites Fetlife.com and Reddit.coms /r/BDSMCommunity. Eligible participants who
were currently involved in more than one significant relationship were asked to complete the
survey based on the relationship which involves BDSM. Participants in multiple BDSM
relationships were asked to choose one relationship and refer only to that relationship for the
purposes of the study. Due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaires, participant age was
restricted to 18 or older. A sample size of 500 participants was obtained in order to achieve a
medium effect size (f2 = .15) for 5 predictors in a multiple regression analysis and a power of
.90. For the factorial analysis, a cell size of 30 was sought out (30 male dominants, 30 female
dominants, etc.) in order to achieve a power of .90. However, only 254 participants completed all
necessary measures and were subsequently retained for analysis. As a result, minimum size was
not met for most cells. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics of the sample. Overall, the
majority of the participants were female (69%), white (86.3%), heterosexual (51.0%), and
identified as submissive (50.6%). A small minority of participants identified as a gender other
than male or female (5.2%).
Procedure
During recruitment, participants were asked to be in a survey study of their experiences
in BDSM relationships. They were informed that they will be asked to fill out a survey which
asks for sensitive personal information about their relationship status, interpersonal satisfaction,
13

and sexual and BDSM practices. Participation was anonymous. Participants recruited through
social media were given a hyperlink directing them to the consent form and questionnaire page.
Following recruitment, participants were prompted to fill out the survey hosted at
Surveymonkey.com. Participants were instructed to complete the survey alone. To account for
partner influence, participants were instructed to complete the survey in isolation from their
partner and were asked if their partner has already completed the survey. Participants completed
the survey in the following order: Demographic information, relationship information, BDSM
information, Respect Toward Partner Scale, Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale, Hurlbert
Index of Sexual Compatibility, Motivation for Relationship Activities Scale, Interpersonal
Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire.
Measures
The survey includes measures for basic socio-demographic information, relationship
information, and BDSM information. The relationship information includes items regarding the
duration and level of commitment (e.g. married, dating, single) of the respondents current
relationship. The BDSM information section consists of both closed (e.g. Which of the
following best describes you: Dominant, Switch, or Submissive?) and open-ended (e.g. How
do you identify in terms of BDSM/kink orientation?) questions about BDSM identity (Yost &
Hunter, 2012), the types of fetishes and BDSM play done within the relationship, the duration
and boundaries for the BDSM aspects of the relationship (e.g. 24/7 slave, Dominant while in
private, endorsement of SSC/RACK, etc.), and the frequency of sexual and BDSM activity (e.g.
How many times per month do you engage in [sex/BDSM play] with your significant other?).
The means, standard deviations, and Cronbachs alphas are displayed on Table 2; overall,
reliability was good for both predictor and dependent variables.
14

Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction Questionnaire (IEMSS). The

IEMSS (Lawrance, Byers, & Cohen, 2011) comprises three self-report measures: the Global
Measure of Sexual Satisfaction (GMSEX) and the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction
(GMREL), an Exchanges Questionnaire (EQ), and a Rewards/Costs Checklist (RCC). These
measures assess the components of the model as well as a checklist of sexual rewards and costs.
For the GMSEX, respondents rate their sex life on five 7-point dimensions (e.g. Good-Bad,
Pleasant-Unpleasant). Ratings are summed such that possible scores range from 5 to 35, with
higher scores indicating greater sexual satisfaction. The GMREL is identical to the GMSEX
except that respondents rate their overall relationship satisfaction. Higher summed scores
indicate greater relationship satisfaction. The Exchanges Questionnaire and Rewards/Costs
Checklist were included in data gathering, but excluded from data analysis.
Hurlbert Index of Sexual Compatibility (HISC). The HISC (Hurlbert, 2011) is a 25-item
Likert-type scale which assesses sexual compatibility between partners. Sample items (My
sexual beliefs are similar to those of my partner.) are rated on a scale of 0 (all the time) to 4
(never), summed, and averaged into a score. Instructions have been modified to include BDSM
in the domain of sexual needs and activities.
Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale (DSC). The DSC is a 13-item scale assessing
respondents perceptions of the communication process encompassing sexual relationships.
Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale (e.g. 1 = Disagree Strongly, 6 = Agree Strongly)
and summed for a total score. An example item would be My partner and I can usually talk
calmly about our sex life.
Respect Toward Partner Scale (RTPS). The RTPS (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2006) is a 6item Likert-type scale which assesses the respondents respect towards their intimate partner.
15

Items (e.g. I respect my partner) are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree). Items are averaged to produce a score.
Motivations for Relational Activities Scale (MRA). The MRA (Gaine & La Guardia,
2009) is a 102 item Likert-type scale which assesses four subscales for sources of motivation for
participating in relationship activities (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified
regulation, and intrinsic motivation) and six subscales for different relationship domains (sexual
intimacy, physical intimacy, self-disclosure, social support, instrumental support, niceties, and
life aspirations). Items (e.g. "Why do you engage in sexual activity (petting, oral sex, or
intercourse) with your partner?/Because I expected it to be interesting and exciting") are rated on
a 7-point scale ranging from from 1 (Not at all true) to 7 (Very true). Items are clustered into
autonomous activity motivation (identified and intrinsic) and controlled activity motivation
(external and introjected) factors. For the purposes of this study, only the 14-item sexual
intimacy subscale, the 14-item physical intimacy subscale, the 13-item disclosure of feelings
subscale, and the 13-item disclosure of thoughts subscale were used for this study and edited to
include BDSM items (e.g. Why do you engaging in sexual activity (petting, oral sex, or
intercourse) or BDSM activity (bondage, sadomasochism, sensual roleplay) with your partner?).
Autonomous and controlled subscales are separately averaged to produce a score.

16

CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS

Analysis was conducted in IBM SPSS 22.0. Evaluation of residual plots indicated
problems with normality and heteroscedasticity. Transformations of dependent variables did not
substantially improve the normality or heteroscedasticity of the residuals. Consequently, 24
outlying data points were deleted in order to provide a more conservative estimation of the
population (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Additionally, the motivation for sexual
intimacy scale contained measurement errors, and was subsequently dropped from analysis 1
Table 3 displays the zero-order correlations for all variables. Bivariate correlations
between relationship characteristics ranged from small to moderate; correlations between
motivation scales were especially high. In general, predictors were associated with interpersonal
satisfaction (global sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction). Respect towards partner had
a significant bivariate relationship with sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction. Sexual
compatibility and sexual communication displayed moderate to large correlations with sexual
satisfaction and relationship satisfaction. Motivational measures were generally significantly
related to interpersonal satisfaction; however, controlled motivation to disclose feelings was not
significantly correlated with interpersonal satisfaction.
Simultaneous regression was employed to test hypothesis 1. Global sexual satisfaction
and global relationship satisfaction were separately regressed onto measures of respect towards
partner, sexual compatibility, sexual communication, motivation to participate in relationship
activities. Tables 4 and 5 display the standardized Betas for each simultaneous regression. Each
model yielded an R significantly different from zero. The model accounted for 39.2% of variance
in sexual satisfaction, F (9, 245) = 17.522, p < .001. Similarly, the model accounted for 38.8% of

Scale labels were mistakenly switched. This error was not caught until data collection was in progress.

17

the variance in relationship satisfaction, F (9, 245) = 17.280, p < .001.Many predictors which
were significant at the bivariate level were nonsignificant in the regression models. Sexual
compatibility emerged as a significant predictor of both sexual satisfaction (t = 6.651; p < .001)
and relationship satisfaction (t = 2.469, p = .014). Respect towards partner emerged as a
significant predictor of relationship satisfaction (t = 5.031; p < .001). Sexual communication
emerged as a significant predictor of sexual satisfaction (t = 3.368; p = .001) and relationship
satisfaction (t = 2.711; p = .007). Autonomous motivation to disclose thoughts emerged as a
significant predictor of relationship satisfaction (t = 2.489; p = .013). Controlled motivation to
disclose thoughts emerged as a significant, negative predictor of relationship satisfaction (t = 3.023; p = .003).
Next, a MANOVA was conducted to examine hypothesis 2 regarding the effects of sex
and BDSM role on interpersonal satisfaction. Observed power was generally low (Sex = .135,
Role =.251, Sex * Role = .311; calculated in SPSS 22.0) due to low overall numbers of certain
cells (Table 6). No significant effects were observed in the MANOVAs (Table 7). Subsequent
one-way ANOVAs also failed to reveal significant effects and also displayed low power (Tables
8 and 9). Regardless, no effect of sex or BDSM role was found.

18

CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION

The study explored the association between relationship characteristics of BDSM
practitioners and interpersonal satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction were
regressed onto sexual compatibility, sexual communication, respect towards partner, and
motivation to participate in relationship activities. Hypothesis 1 was generally supported. Sexual
communication, sexual compatibility, respect towards partner, and autonomous motivation were
positively related to interpersonal satisfaction, while controlled motivation was negatively
associated with interpersonal satisfaction. Furthermore, the simultaneous linear regression
models each attained significance and accounted for 11-39% of the variance in interpersonal
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2 was not confirmed; no significant main or interaction effects of sex or
BDSM role were detected. This result may have arisen from the lack of power due to low
numbers of participants in certain cells. Although many submissive women responded to the
survey recruitment, very few dominant women responded. Similarly, relatively few switch and
submissive men responded compared to dominant men, and women responded at more than
twice the rate of men. Differences in response rates may have been due to differences in
personality between sex and role (Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013) or as of yet unknown factors
regarding BDSM populations.
The observed results support the earlier proposition that BDSM relationships adhere to
general relationship models. Consistent with previous research on non-BDSM relationships,
higher interpersonal satisfaction in BDSM relationships was associated with better
communication, better sexual compatibility, more respect for ones partner, and autonomous
motivation to participate in relationship activities. Social exchange theory and self-determination
19

both adequately explained variation in interpersonal satisfaction among BDSM practitioners.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported due to statistical nonsignificance and lack of statistical power.
One potential reason why Hypothesis 1 was supported and Hypothesis 2 was not supported may
be that merely identifying with a particular BDSM role does not have a substantial direct effect
on interpersonal satisfaction. Instead, relationship skills and motivation may be the most
proximal predictors of interpersonal satisfaction in any relationship, regardless of sexuality or
lifestyle choices. In fact, the high interpersonal satisfaction across the sample overall suggests
that BDSM might have a positive, if any, effect on interpersonal satisfaction. Alternatively, high
overall satisfaction may be a result of sampling location; BDSM practitioners were recruited
from online BDSM organizations. These organizations frequently host discussions for supporting
healthy sexual and relationship practices, such as improving communication and navigating other
relationship hurdles. As such, exposure to supportive online and offline BDSM communities
may have an indirect effect on interpersonal satisfaction via better relationship skills.
Overall, the current study contributes to a growing body of research by examining an
understudied population in the context of social exchange theory and self-determination theory.
BDSM practitioners exhibited patterns of relationship characteristics and interpersonal
satisfaction typical to most interpersonal relationships. These similarities confirm previous work
showing that BDSM is not pathological. Given these results, the time may be drawing near when
sexuality researchers shift focus away from clearing BDSM practitioners of pathology or
wrongdoing and towards approaches which characterize the many unique, nontraditional
relationship styles BDSM offers and the potential benefits of these practices. Additionally, the
study provides a unique sampling frame; online BDSM communities are difficult to recruit from
due to concerns with privacy. Despite these difficulties, I was able to recruit from both
20

Reddit.com and Fetlife.com, two unique websites with substantially different communities.
Furthermore, I was able to recruit from many different groups within Fetlife (e.g. groups catered
towards people unfamiliar to BDSM, groups for specific intersections of role, gender/sex, and
sexual orientation, etc.), contributing to the overall diversity of the study. Finally, this study was
informative of the demographics of respondents; it was initially expected that women would be a
less accessible demographic due to a perceived unwillingness to respond to a survey of this
nature. Although female dominants were the smallest group in our study, female submissives in
fact comprised the largest group by a substantial margin. This, along with the generally high
ratings of autonomous motivation somewhat suggests that women in the BDSM community may
play a more active role in the BDSM community than critics would believe (Breslow, Evans, &
Langley, 1986; as cited by Rehor, 2015). Nearly half of all respondents identified as bisexual or
pansexual, which was substantially higher than certain population estimates (Gates, 2011). The
demographics observed in these study may be pertinent to future studies regarding BDSM
populations, since diverse samples may require more care than common subject pools.
There were few key limitations which must be considered with the current study. First
and foremost, the study design did not include a non-BDSM practicing control group as a
comparison. As such, differences or similarities between relationship practices and interpersonal
satisfaction in BDSM and non-BDSM practicing relationships cannot be inferred. Second, the
cross-sectional design of the study provides only a brief snapshot of BDSM relationships and
does not account for changes in interpersonal satisfaction over time. Third, the participants were
not recruited from a random sample, but a relatively small, self-selected pool of participants.
This limitation was due in part to the secluded nature of BDSM communities. Previous work has
circumvented this limitation in large, nation-wide studies (e.g. Richters et al., 2008). As this was
21

not possible for the current study, participants from multiple sites and sub-communities were
recruited. Consequently, interpersonal satisfaction was skewed towards high satisfaction, with no
truly unsatisfied respondents (i.e. restriction of range). Generalizability may be further limited by
low numbers of certain participants (e.g. female dominants), leading to a sample which was not
truly representative of the population. However, this may also add the benefit of reaching
previously unexplored pockets of the BDSM community, since Reddit.com and Fetlife.com have
been seldom utilized in research. Fourth, the current study elicited complaints from participants
who noted their concerns in comments at the end of the study. Length was the most common
complaint; however, a number of participants suggested that the measures did not adequately
reflect their role, gender, or relationship status. Indeed, the study design may be seen as clumsy
in light of the fact that most measures were designed for heterosexual, monogamous, nonBDSM-practicing couples when the population in question was anything but this. Finally, the
motivation to engage in sexual activities was dropped due to experimenter error. Fortunately, the
other similar motivation measures produced the expected effects, mitigating the potential damage
of this error.
With these limitations in mind, there are many promising paths for future BDSM
research. There is a lack of relationship measures which have been tailored to the nuances of
queer, nonmonogamous, BDSM-practicing relationships. Research designs and instruments
which may be appropriate to non-BDSM practicing couples may not be appropriate with BDSM
in mind. For example, some participants voiced their concerns that BDSM is not inherently
sexual or does not always involve inherently sexual activities (e.g. oral sex, intercourse).
Nonmonogamous respondents were forced into the inelegant decision of either responding to the

22

survey with only one partner in mind or not completing the survey. Indeed, the lack of
appropriate measures may have contributed to frustration and subsequent participant attrition.
Similarly, the underlying structure and common features of BDSM and nonmonogamous
relationships has yet to be explored. Although BDSM practitioners frequently engage in roleplay,
sadomasochism, and bondage over the course of their relationship, these behaviors may occur in
isolation during any one physical encounter. It seems likely that there are clusters of related
behaviors (e.g. spanking and whipping cluster in a sadomasochism cluster), and that different
clusters of behavior may be associated with different subjective experiences or different
perceived benefits. For example, sadomasochism may be especially likely to elicit endorphins
from participants, which may lead to feelings of subjective relief (Hebert & Weaver, 2015)
whereas roleplay activities may engage different processes and different rewards. Thus,
examining the underlying structure of different BDSM and nonmonogamous relationships and
investigating the effects of these structures on behavior and relationship outcomes may provide
insight into what makes BDSM and nonmonogamy rewarding for some people and not others.
The effects of BDSM communities is also worth investigating. As previously mentioned,
BDSM communities provide locations for BDSM practitioners to give and receive support and
engage in discussion regarding their sexualities. However, not all BDSM practitioners gravitate
towards the same kinds of communities (e.g. online versus offline), if at all. For example, a
college student with a preference for spanking may never seek out support from a BDSM
community, if theyre even aware of the existence of such like-minded folk. Furthermore,
different communities likely have different norms regarding interpersonal behavior (e.g.
communication), gender politics, and policing of sexual predators. As such, it is entirely possible

23

that the influence of social communities have substantial direct and indirect effects on
interpersonal satisfaction as well as individual well-being.
Despite these limitations, the current study supported the idea that BDSM relationships
have relationship structures consistent with social exchange theory and self-determination
theory. Communication, compatibility, respect, and autonomous motivation were associated at
the bivariate level with higher interpersonal satisfaction, while the simultaneous linear regression
model captured a significant proportion of variance in interpersonal satisfaction. Sex and BDSM
role were not associated with differences in interpersonal satisfaction. Altogether, the current
study contributes to sexualities literature by providing insight into the machinations of BDSM
relationships and suggesting that BDSM relationships largely follow the same theoretical
tendencies as other relationships, even when structural differences are present.

24

APPENDIX A

Interpersonal Satisfaction

5
4
3
2
1
0
Dominant

Switch
Male

Submissive

Female

Figure 1. Interpersonal Satisfaction, Gender, and BDSM Role

25

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics (N=254)

Variable Name
Sex
Male
Female
Role
Dominant/Top
Switch
Submissive/Bottom
Ethnicity
White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
From multiple races
Some other race
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual
Homosexual
Bisexual or Pansexual
Asexual
Age
18-20
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59

Frequency

Percent

79
176

31.0
69.0

55
71
129

21.6
27.8
50.6

220
4
4
9
14
4

86.3
1.6
1.6
3.5
5.5
1.6

130
18
101
6

51.0
7.1
39.6
2.4

28
103
54
34
28

11.0
40.4
21.2
13.3
11.0

26

Table 2 Scale Mean, Standard Deviation, and Reliability Statistics

Scale Name
Mean
SD

Respect Towards Partner Scale

2.714

1.641

.685

Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale

83.906

9.034

.862

Hurlbert Index of Sexual Compatibility

4.675

.577

.897

Motivation for Physical Intimacy Scale

(Autonomous)
Motivation for Physical Intimacy Scale
(Controlled)
Motivation to Disclose Feelings Scale
(Autonomous)
Motivation to Disclose Feelings Scale
(Controlled)
Motivation to Disclose Thoughts Scale
(Autonomous)
Motivation to Disclose Thoughts Scale
(Controlled)
Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction

6.598

.608

.888

2.420

1.001

.778

5.872

.899

.911

2.652

1.162

.793

6.525

1.162

.875

2.124

.964

.726

33.302

2.09

.880

Global Measure of Relationship

Satisfaction

33.384

2.233

.920

Table 3 Bivariate Correlations

1. RTPS
2. HISC
3. SC
4. MPI Auto
5. MPI Cont
6. MDF
Auto
7. MDF
Cont
8. MDT
Auto
9. MDT
Cont
10. GMSEX
11. GMREL

1.
.207**
.157*
.243**

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

.412**
.336**

.151*

-.017
.190**

-.247** -.169** .098

.224** .258** .449**

.134*

-.003

-.208** -.107

.083

.587**

.138*

.288**

.279**

.534**

.029

.705**

.028

-.055

-.279** -.149*

-.001

.546**

.134*

.713**

.024

.242**
.414**

.553**
.402**

.346**
.330**

-.075
-.149*

.312**
.313**

-.083
-.099

.334**
.415**

-.129* -.234** .658**

.273**

.409**
.359**

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

27

7.

8.

9.

10.

Table 4 Summary of Sexual Satisfaction Regression Coefficients (GMSEX)

Scale Name
Respect Toward Partner Scale
Hurlbert Index of Sexual Compatibility
Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale
Motivation for Physical Intimacy Scale (Autonomous)
Motivation for Physical Intimacy Scale (Controlled)
Motivation to Disclose Feelings (Autonomous)
Motivation to Disclose Feelings (Controlled)
Motivation to Disclose Thoughts (Autonomous)
Motivation to Disclose Thoughts (Controlled)
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

.080
.401***
.190**
.106
.055
.089
-.029
.027
-.006

Table 5 Summary of Relationship Satisfaction Regression Coefficients (GMREL)

Scale Name

Respect Toward Partner Scale

.267***
Hurlbert Index of Sexual Compatibility
.149*
Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale
.154**
Motivation for Physical Intimacy Scale (Autonomous)
.064
Motivation for Physical Intimacy Scale (Controlled)
-.046
Motivation to Disclose Feelings (Autonomous)
.046
Motivation to Disclose Feelings (Controlled)
.121
Motivation to Disclose Thoughts (Autonomous)
.192*
Motivation to Disclose Thoughts (Controlled)
-.226**
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Table 6 Cross-tabulation of Sex and BDSM Role

Dominant
Switch
Male
43 (16.9%)
20 (7.8%)
Female
12 (4.7%)
51 (20.0%)

Submissive
16 (6.3%)
113 (44.3%)

Table 7 Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance

Label
df
F
p2
Sex
2, 248
.518
.004
Role
4, 498
.779
.006
Sex*Role
4, 498
.981
.008

p
.597
.539
.418

28

Table 8 Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance for Sex

Mean (Std. dev)
Male
Female
df
GMSEX
33.304 (2.090)
33.301 (2.096)
2, 252
GMREL
33.430 (2.164)
33.363 (2.269)
2, 252

F
.000
.049

Table 9 Summary of One-Way Analysis of Variance for BDSM Role

Mean (Std. dev)
Dominant/
Switch
Submissive/
df
Top
Bottom
GMSE
33.618
33.254 (2.189) 33.194 (2.099) 2, 252
X
(1.939)
GMRE 33.655
33.563 (2.109) 33.171 (2.379) 2, 252
L
(2.011)

29

p
.993
.826

.820

.44
2
.29
6

1.22
4

Power
.050
.056

Powe
r
.190
.266

APPENDIX B
Background Questionnaires
Are you male or female?
o Male
o Female
Please indicate gender other than male/female if applicable: __________
Is your partner male or female?
o Male
o Female
Please indicate gender other than male/female, if applicable: __________
What is your age?
o 17 or younger
o 18-20
o 21-29
o 30-39
o 40-49
o 50-59
o 60 or older
Are you White, Black or African-American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacific islander, or some other race?
o White
o Black or African-American
o American Indian or Alaskan Native
o Asian
o Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
o From multiple races
o Some other race (please specify):__________
Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
o Heterosexual
o Homosexual
o Bisexual or Pansexual
o Asexual
Which of the following BDMS roles best describes you?
o Dominant/Top
o Switch
o Submissive/Bottom
30

If needed, describe how you identify in terms of BDSM role (e.g. Dominant, Mistress, Slave,
etc.): __________
Which of the following BDMS roles best describes your partner?
o Dominant/Top
o Switch
o Submissive/Bottom
If needed, describe how your partner identifies in terms of BDSM role (e.g. Dominant, Mistress,
Slave, etc.): __________

Respect Toward Partner Scale

Please indicate your opinion for each item concerning your relationship.

1. I respect my partner
2. I am interested in my
partner as a person
3. I am a source of healing for
my partner
4. I honor my partner
5. I approve of the person my
partner is
6. I communicate well with
my partner

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither
Agree Nor
Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Hurlbert Index of Sexual Compatibility

Please indicate your opinion for each item concerning your relationship.

1. My sexual beliefs are

similar to those of my
partner
2. I think my partner
understands me sexually
3. My partner and I share the
same sexual likes and
dislikes

All of the
time
4

Most of
the time
3

Some of
the time
2

Rarely

Never

31

4. I think my partner desires

too much sex
5. My partner is unwilling to
do certain sexual things for
me that I would like to
experience
6. I feel comfortable during
sex with my partner
7. I am sexually attracted to
my partner
8. My partner sexually
pleases me
9. My partner and I argue
about the sexual aspects of
our relationship
10. My partner and I share the
same level of interest in
sex
11. I feel uncomfortable
engaging in some of the
sexual activities that my
partner desires
12. When it comes to sex, my
ideas and values are
different from those of my
partner
13. I do not think I meet my
partner's sexual needs
14. My partner and I enjoy the
same sexual activities
15. When it comes to sex, my
partner and I get along well
16. I think my partner is
sexually attracted to me
17. My partner enjoys doing
certain sexual things that I
dislike
18. It is hard for me to accept
my partners' views on sex
19. In our relationship, my
partner places too much
importance on sex
20. My partner and I disagree
over the frequency in
which we should have sex

32

21. I have the same sexual

values as my partner
22. My partner and I share
similar sexual fantasies
23. When it comes to sex, my
partner is unwilling to do
certain things that I would
like to experience
24. I think I sexually satisfy
my partner
25. My partner and I share
about the same level of
sexual desire

Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale

Please indicate your opinion for each item concerning your relationship.

1. My partner rarely
responds when I want
to talk about our sex
life
2. Some sexual matters
are too upsetting to
discuss with my sexual
partner
3. There are sexual issues
or problems in our
sexual relationship that
we have never
discussed
4. My partner and I never
seem to resolve our
disagreements about
sexual matters
5. Whenever my partner
and I talk about sex, I
feel like they are
lecturing me
6. My partner often
complains that I am not
very clear about what I
want sexually

Strongly
Disagree
1

Disagree

Somewhat
Agree
4

Agree

Somewhat
Disagree
3

Strongly
Agree
6

33

7. My partner and I have

never had a heart-toheart talk about our sex
life together
8. My partner has no
difficulty in talking to
me about their sexual
feelings or desires
9. Even when angry with
me, my partner is able
to appreciate my views
on sexuality
10. Talking about sex is a
satisfying experience
for both of us
11. My partner and I can
usually talk calmly
about our sex life
12. I have little difficulty
in telling my partner
what I do or don't do
sexually
13. I seldom feel
embarrassed when
talking about the
details of our sex life
with my partner

Motivation for Relationship Activities Scale

Please answer the following questions regarding your motivation to participate in specific
relationship activities.
Why do you engage in sexual activity (petting, oral sex, or intercourse) or BDSM activity with
your partner?
Not Untrue Somewhat Neutral Somewhat True Very
At
Untrue
True
True
All
True
1. Because I expect it to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
be interesting and
exciting

34

2. Because I get pleasure

from sharing a special
and intimate
experience with my
partner
3. Because I find it very
arousing and
enjoyable to give my
partner physical
pleasure
4. Because I value
sexual activity as part
of a full life
5. Because sexual
activity is an
important part of my
relationship
6. Because it allows us
to grow closer and
more intimate
7. Because sexual
activity makes me feel
better about myself

8. Because that is what

couples are supposed
to do
9. Because I'd feel
anxious or guilty if I
denied my partner of
sexual activity
10. Because my partner
wants it, and it's my
role to satisfy my
partner's needs
11. Because my partner
gets moody and
irritable if I deny them
of sexual activity

12. Because I fear my

partner may become
discontented with our
relationship if I don't
fulfill their sexual
needs

35

13. Because my partner is

in a better mood and
is nicer to me after we
engage in sexual
activity
14. Because my partner
will do things for me
that they wouldn't do
if I didn't engage in
sexual activity with
them

Why do you engage in physical intimacy (i.e. hug, kiss, cuddle) with your partner?
Not
At
All
True
1

Untrue

Somewhat
Untrue

Neutral

Somewhat
True

True

Very
True

2. Because I love the way

I feel when I am in
contact with them

3. Because I am very
attracted to my partner
and desire to be in
physical contact with
them
4. Because it increases the
intimacy and closeness
in our relationship
5. Because physical
intimacy helps us stay
connected and fosters
emotional closeness
between us
6. Because I believe it is a
healthy aspect of a
good relationship
7. Because it symbolizes
our togetherness, which
is something I value

1. Because I enjoy being

in contact with him/her

36

and strive for in our

relationship
8. Because romantic
couples are supposed to
show their affection for
one another through
physical intimacy
9. Because I want others
to know that we are a
happy and intimate
couple
10. Because I feel anxious
about our relationship
unless their is a show
of physical affection
between us
11. Because it pleases my
partner, and I need to
please them to feel
important and wanted
12. Because my partner
insists that we be
physically affectionate

13. Because my partner

seems cold and
rejecting if I don't give
them physical affection

14. Because my partner

wants to be touched, so
I do it to avoid a hassle
from them

Untrue

Somewhat
Untrue

Neutral

Somewhat
True

True

Very
True

Why do you share your feelings with your partner?

1. Because I find it
exciting to explore my
innermost feelings
with my partner

Not
At
All
True
1

37

2. Because it feels good

to talk about my
feelings with my
partner

3. Because I find it
interesting to talk
about my feelings
with my partner

4. Because it is
important to me that I
can share my feelings
with my partner
5. Because I value being
open about my
feelings in my
relationship
6. Because being in-tune
with each other's
feelings helps our
relationship stay on
track
7. Because when my
partner shares his/her
feelings, I feel
obligated to share
some of mine
8. Because that's what
my partner expects me
to do
9. Because people are
supposed to share
their feelings in
relationships
10. Because my partner
nags me until I tell
them what I'm feeling

11. Because my partner

shows that they
approve of me when I
share my feelings

38

12. Because my partner

treats me better when
I've expressed my
feelings
13. Because my partner
withdraws and
becomes cold with me
if I don't share my
feelings with them
14. Because I find it
exciting to explore my
innermost feelings
with my partner

Why do you share your thoughts and concerns with your partner?

1. Because I get excited

to tell my partner my
thoughts
2. Because it is
interesting and
thought-provoking to
talk about my ideas
with my partner
3. Because I enjoy
sharing deep and
meaningful
conversations with my
partner
4. Because I value
openness in our
relationship
5. Because I want my
partner to know and
understand me
6. Because I value what I
learn about myself
when I discuss my
thoughts with my
partner

Not
At
All
True
1

Untrue

Somewhat
Untrue

Neutral

Somewhat
True

True

Very
True

39

7. Because talking to my
partner gives me a
new perspective on
my problems and
helps me deal with
them
8. Because I sometimes
feel guilty if I keep
my thoughts private
9. Because I worry my
partner will think I'm
dumb or boring if I
don't share my
thoughts
10. Because when my
partner shares their
thoughts, I feel like I
have to share mine
11. Because my partner
won't stop asking me
questions unless I tell
them what I'm
thinking
12. Please mark this
question as "Very
True"

13. Because my partner is

friendlier and nicer
when I tell them what
I'm thinking

14. Because my partner

demands that I be
open about what I'm
thinking, and they will
get angry and
resentful if I don't go
along

40

Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction

Overall, how would you describe your sexual/BDSM relationship with your partner?

1.

Very Bad
1

2.

Very
Unpleasant
1

3.

Very
Negative
1

4.

5.

Bad
2

Somewhat
Bad
3

Neutral
4

Somewhat
Good
5

Unpleasant
2

Somewhat
Unpleasant
3

Somewhat
Neutral Pleasant
4
5

Negative
2

Somewhat
Negative
3

Somewhat
Neutral Positive
4
5

Good
6

Very
Good
7

Pleasant
6

Very
Pleasant
7

Positive
6

Very
Positive
7

Very
Somewhat
Somewhat
Very
Unsatisfying Unsatisfying Unsatisfying Neutral Satisfying Satisfying Satisfying
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Somewhat
Not
Not
Somewhat
Very
Worthless
Valuable
Valuable
Neutral Valuable Valuable Valuable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction

In general, how would you describe your overall relationship with your partner?

1.

Very Bad
1

Bad
2

Somewhat
Bad
3

2.

Very
Unpleasant
1

Unpleasant
2

Somewhat
Unpleasant
3

Neutral
4

3.

Very
Negative
1

Negative
2

Somewhat
Negative
3

Neutral
4

4.

5.

Somewhat
Neutral
Good
4
5

Good
6

Very
Good
7

Somewhat
Pleasant
5

Pleasant
6

Very
Pleasant
7

Somewhat
Positive
5

Positive
6

Very
Positive
7

Very
Somewhat
Somewhat
Very
Unsatisfying Unsatisfying Unsatisfying Neutral Satisfying Satisfying Satisfying
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Somewhat
Not
Not
Somewhat
Very
Worthless
Valuable
Valuable
Neutral Valuable Valuable Valuable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

41

APPENDIX C

42

REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text rev.). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.744053
Baughman, H.M., Jonason, P.K., Veselka, L., & Vernon, P.A. (2014). Four shades of sexual
fantasies linked to the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 47-51. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.034
Bezreh, T., Weinberg, T. S., & Edgar, T. (2012). BDSM Disclosure and stigma management:
Identifying opportunities for sex education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7,
37-61.
Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. (1990). Toward a motivational model
ofcouple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.
Byers, E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of
individuals in long-term relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 42 (2), 113-118.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813147
Cantina, J.A. (2011). Dyadic sexual communication scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W.L.
Yarber, S.L. (Eds.). Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 130-131; 3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Chivers, M. L., Roy, C., Grimbos, T., Cantor, J. M., & Seto, M. C. (2014). Specificity of sexual
arousal for sexual activities in men and women with conventional and masochistic sexual
interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 931-940. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0174-1

43

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Connolly, P. H. (2006). Psychological functioning of Bondage/Domination/Sado-masochism
(BDSM) practitioners. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 79-120. doi:
10.1300/J056v18n01_05
Damon, W. (2002). Dominance, sexism, and inadequacy: Testing a compensatory
conceptualization in a sample of heterosexual men involved in SM. Journal of
Psychology & Human Sexuality, 14, 25-45. doi: 10.1300/J056v14n04_02
Davison, G. C. and Neale, J. M. (1990) Abnormal Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Faccio, E., Casini, C., & Cipolletta, S. (2014). Forbidden games: The construction of sexuality
and sexual pleasure by BDSM players. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16, 752-764. doi:
10.1080/13691058.2014.90953
Frei, J. R. & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self-report
assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships, 9, 121-139. doi: 1350-4126/02
Gaine, G. S. G. & La Guardia, J. G. (2009). The unique contributions of motivations to maintain
a relationship and motivations toward relational activities to relationship well-being.
Motivation and Emotion, 33, 184-202. doi:10.1007/s11031-009-9120-x
Gates, G. J. (2011). How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender? The
Williams Institute, University of California School of Law. Retrieved from
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/howmany-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

44

Gosselin, C. and Wilson, G. (1980) Sexual Variations: Fetishism, Sadomasochism and

Transvestism. London: Faber & Faber.
Hendrick, S. S. & Hendrick, C. (2006). Measuring respect in close relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 881-899. doi: 10.1177/0265407506070471
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C. & Logue, E. M. (2010). Respect and the family. Journal of Family
Theory and Review, 2, 126-136. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00046.x
Holman, T. B. & Jarvis, M. O. (2003). Hostile, volatile, avoiding, and validating couple-conflict
types: An investigation of Gottmans couple-conflict types. Personal Relationships, 10,
267-282.
Hurlbert, D.F. (2011). Hurlbert index of sexual compatibility. In T.D. Fisher, C.M.Davis, W.L.
Yarber, S.L. (Eds.). Handbook of sexuality-related measures (p. 143; 3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Knee, C. R., Hadden, B. W., Porter, B., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2013). Self-determination theory
and romantic relationship processes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 307324. doi: 10.1177/1088868313498000
Larue, D., Schmidt, A.F., Eggers, K., Imhoff, R., Schonbrodt, F.D., Banse, R. (2014). Validation
of direct and indirect measures of preference for sexualized violence. Psychological
Assessment, n.p. doi: 10.1037/pas0000016
Lawrence, K., Byers, E.S., Cohen, J.N. (2011). Interpersonal exchange model of sexual
satisfaction questionnaire. In T.D. Fisher, C.M.Davis, W.L. Yarber, S.L. (Eds.).
Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 525-529; 3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.

45

Litzinger, S. & Gordon, K. C. (2005). Exploring relationships among communication, sexual

satisfaction, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31, 409-424.
doi: 10.1080/00926230591006719
Kelsey, K., Stiles, B. L., Spiller, L., & Diekhoff, G. M. (2013). Assessment of therapists
attitudes towards BDSM. Psychology & Sexuality, 4, 255-267. doi:
10.1080/19419899.2012.655255
Kolmes, K., Stock, W., & Moser, C. (2006). Investigating bias in psychotherapy with BDSM
clients. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 301-324.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2009). Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of
long-term heterosexual couples. The Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 3-14. doi:
10.1080/00224490802398399
Mark, K. P. & Jozkowski, K. N. (2013). The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual
communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age
heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 39, 410-427. doi:
10.1080/0092623X.2011.644652
Mark, K. P., Milhausen, R. R., & Maitland, S. B. (2013). The impact of sexual compatibility on
sexual and relationship satisfaction in a sample of young adult heterosexual couples.
Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28(3), 201-214. doi: 10.1080/14681994.2013.807336
Milhausen, R.R., Sales, J.M., DiClemente, R.J. (2011). Partner communication scale. In T.D.
Fisher, C.M.Davis, W.L. Yarber, S.L. (Eds.). Handbook of sexuality-related measures
(pp. 137-138; 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

46

Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P.J. (2007). Themes of SM expression. In D. Langdridge & M. Barker
(Eds.), Safe, sane, and consensual: Contemporary perspectives on sadomasochism (pp.
5562). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Rehor, J. E. (2015). Sensual, erotic, and sexual behaviors of women from the kink community.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 825-836. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0524-2
Richters, J., De Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. (2008). Demographic
and psychosocial features of participants in bondage and discipline,sadomasochism or
dominance and submission (BDSM): Data from a national survey. The Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 5, 1660-1668. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x
Sabatelli, R. M. (1988) Exploring relationship satisfaction: A social exchange perspective on the
interdependence between theory, research, and practice. Family Relations, 37 (2), 217222.
Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N. K., Alison, L, & Nordling, N. (2002). Investigating the underlying
structure in sadomasochistically oriented behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 185196.
Seto, M. C., Lalumire, M. L., Harris, G. T., & Chivers, M. L. (2012). The sexual responses of
sexual sadists. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 739.
Stockwell, F. M. J., Walker, D. J., & Eshleman, J. W. (2010). Measures of implicit and explicit
attitudes toward mainstream and BDSM sexual terms using the IRAP and questionnaire
with BDSM/fetish and student participants. The Psychological Record, 60, 307-324.
Taormino, T. (2012). The ultimate guide to kink: BDSM, role play, and the erotic edge.
Berkeley, CA: Cleis Press, Inc.

47

Taylor, G. W., & Ussher, J. M. (2001). Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account.
Sexualities, 4, 293-314. doi: 10.1177/136346001004003002
Taylor, G. W. (1997) The Discursive Construction and Regulation of Dissident Sexualities, The
Case of SM, in J. M. Ussher (ed.) Body Talk: The Material and Discursive Regulation of
Sexuality, Madness and Reproduction. London: Routledge.
Weinberg, M.S., Williams, C.J., Moser, C. (1984). The social constituents of sadomasochism.
Social Problems, 31, 379-389.
Weiss, M.D. (2008). Mainstreaming kink: The politics of BDSM representation in U.S. popular
media. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 103-132. doi: 10.1300/J082v50n02_06
Wiseman, J. (1998). SM 101: A realistic introduction (2nd ed.). Eugene, OR: Greenery Press
Wismeijer, A. A. J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2013). Psychological characteristics of BDSM
practitioners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 1943-1952. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12192
Yost, M. R., & Hunter, L. (2012). BDSM practitioners understandings of their initial attraction
to BDSM sexuality: essentialist and constructionist narratives. Psychology & Sexuality,3,
244-259. doi:10.1080/19419899.2012.700028

48

VITA
Alexander Wang is from San Antonio, TX. They earned a Bachelor of Arts in
Psychology at Lawrence University and Master of Science in Psychology from The University of
Texas at San Antonio. Their research interests pertain to the psychology of gender, sexualities,
and relationships. Their future plans include attending a doctoral program, engaging in
relationship and sexualities research, and practicing therapy oriented towards sexual minorities.