Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Journals) The Sadomasochism Checklist A Tool For The Assessment PDF
(Journals) The Sadomasochism Checklist A Tool For The Assessment PDF
DOI 10.1007/s10508-016-0789-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
123
Arch Sex Behav
is necessary, as they can be prominent among clinical populations psychotic traits than people with conventional sexual prefer-
and in forensic samples, presenting clear targets for treatment as ences (Cross & Matheson, 2006). These examples of current
well as the prevention of future assaults. However, Krueger also research all support the view that there is no evidence that SM
argued for a more structured and empirically based approach tow practition-
ard the understanding of pathological deviations of sadistic and ma ers deviate from the general population in a pathological way
sochistictendenciesthatcanbedistinguishedfromavariant ofnon- (Moser & Kleinplatz, 2006; Nichols, 2006). Large-scale empir-
deviant sexuality. In the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Sta- ical studies are therefore a valuable source to objectify views on
tistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Asso- consensual SM play and help uncover and identify the func-
ciation, 2013), a subtle but crucial change was made: the terms tionality of SM practices.
sexual sadism and sexual masochism were changed into sexual In the present article, we describe the development of a com-
sadism disorder and sexual masochism disorder, to draw a line prehensive 24-item checklist for the assessment of an individuals
between deviant and pathological sexual behavior. For being attraction to sadomasochism, covering both dominant and sub-
diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, the DSM-5 requires that missive practices. The items in the checklist as well as the results
people with an interest in SM practices would either (1) have to on psychometric properties of the checklist were derived from an
feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress online study conducted with a sample of participants mainly from
resulting from societys disapprovalor (2) have tohave a sex- the German SM community. For item construction, we consid-
ual desire or behavior that involves another persons psycholog- ered literature on different types of SM play (e.g., Alison, Sant-
icaldistress,injury,ordeath,oradesireforsexualbehaviorsinvolv- tila, Sandnabba, & Nordling, 2001; Ernulf & Innala, 1995) from
ing unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent. an extensive literature review. Moreover, we received support
These criteria are used to distinguish pathological from non-patho- from experienced members of the German SM community. To
logical forms of SM practices. draw a representative sample from the German SM community,
In sexual science, the historically based pathologization is we utilized an online assessment that was promoted on central
likewise often opposed with the play-like behavior that considers nationwide websites of the community. This checklist aims to
SM as a consensual, careful, and collaborative sexual behavior, provide an objective tool for future research on SM play in sex-
apart from any pathological deviations (Hoople, 1996; Moser, ual science and validly distinguish between individuals with a
1998). One of the most common distinctions between non-patho- different attraction to SM fantasies and practices.
logical and pathological SM behavior is the differentiation between
consentbetweenthetwopartnersandcoercion(Moser&Kleinplatz,
2007). This view on SM is also often shared within the SM com- Method
munities, which have consensual SM play and sex as prime
principles (Pitagora, 2013; Sagarin, Cutler, Cutler, Lawler- Participants
Sagarin, & Matuszewich, 2009).
Studies on consensual BDSM offer a diversity of interesting An online survey was administered to a German population after
research questions concerning the nature of SM tendencies, its contacting mailing lists and SM communities (e.g., www.sm-
relation to other associated constructs, such as satisfaction in rela- hh.de, SM netpublishing, SM Stammtisch of different Ger-
tionships, early childhood development, or character traits, as man cities). The link with the invitation to participate in a study
well as its relevance for practical applications. Williams (2009) about sadomasochism and sexual diversity was also sent to dif-
particularly emphasized positive consequences of SM in rela- ferent e-mail distribution lists of student associations and social
tionships: Williams suggested that professionals working in the networks in order to recruit non-BDSM participants. These served
field of sexual sciences have to consider that SM practicesunder as a reference group for the study population to compare the par-
safe participationcan promote intimacy and creative stimulation ticipants pleasure gain and frequency of SM behavior between
in partnerships. This matches studies in which it was demon- groups with different attraction to SM practices. Altogether, the
strated that heterosexuals and homosexuals who are active in website was accessed 1519 times. A total of 1145 participants
BDSM practices are also more open to other sexual experi- started the online survey, of which 652 completed the full survey
ences(Richters, de Visser, Rissel, Grulich, & Smith, 2008) and (345 female participants, 307 male participants).
report various benefits of their interest in BDSM (Hebert & The age range was 1860 years (M = 39, SD = 11.7). At the
Weaver, 2015). Relations between the attraction to SM prac- beginning of the study, participants had to make a declaration
tices and character traits that have been discussed in the early about their SM self-perception, meaning whether they would
literature, such as a lack of self-confidence, neuroticism, and describe themselves asdominants,submissives,switches,
extraversion, were in turn not found (Pokroppa, 1999). Empir- or if they had no particular attraction to sadomasochism. People
ical studies could also demonstrate that masochists did not who preferred playing the dominant role in SM practices were
score higher in mental instability and that people with sadis- named dominants (N = 136, 26 females), people who pre-
tic sexual interest did not have higher values in antisocial or ferred the submissive role were namedsubmissives(N = 230,
123
Arch Sex Behav
170 females), and people who enjoyed both sides and switched such as urine or feces. We therefore named the fifth group of SM
the SM roles were namedswitches(N = 155, 74 females). A practicesbreathingand the sixthbody fluids.
total of 131 participants (75 females) had no explicit SM interest For each item, participants had to indicate whether they
(conventional group). A v2-test revealed a significant differ- have had no experiences at all with the respective practice
ence in the distribution between females and males across the (coded0), if it occurs as a masturbation fantasy (coded1),
groups of dominants, submissives, and switches, v2(2) = 105.70, or if they practice or practiced it in real life (coded2). Particip
p\.001. Comparisons of the proportions of female and male par- ants additionally had to rate their personal sexual pleasure gain
ticipants among the three groups demonstrated that more males from each practice on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all)
were in the group of dominants than in the other two groups to 4 (extremely) from their current perspective. As sexual expe-
of switches, v2(1) = 26.32, p\.001, and submissives, v2(1) = riences shape future sexual preferences and activities (ODono-
103.17, p\.001. Likewise, more women were in the group of van, 2010), no specific timeframe for experiences with SM fan
submissives than in the group of switches, v2(1) = 27.33, p\ tasies or behavior was set. For each item, participants could select
.001 and dominants (see above). The primary sexual orientation one response for prior experience and one response for pleasure
was measured using a 8-pointslider scale,ranging from hetero gain.
sexual (0) to homosexual (7): 56 % of the participants indi
cated being heterosexual, 17 % bisexual, and 10 % homosexual. Procedure
The remaining 17 % felt dedicated to possibilities between the
three options. Attendees participated voluntarily. Ethical rev The online questionnaire was accessed through a link in the
iew boards approved the study. invitation e-mail and was administered through unipark.de.
Informed consent information was provided, and participants
Measures consents were obtained by clicking I agree before being
directed to the survey questions. Participation was anonymous
Construction of the Checklist and took approximately 1520 min to complete.
123
Arch Sex Behav
were calculated using g*power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, reliability could be traced back to the comparably low number of
& Buchner, 2007). responses to the fecessub item.
123
Arch Sex Behav
Table 1 One-factor solution and varimax solution for the items of the SMCL Submission scale
Item One-factor Six-factor solution
solution
(29.32 %) Domination Toys Soft play Beatings Breath Bodily fluids
(15.22 %) (11.26 %) (10.48 %) (9.95 %) (9.59 %) (7.57 %)
To additionally combine the items into smaller subsets, all two items each and subsumed soft SM play behavior as well as the
non-trivial factors with an eigenvalue[1 were subsequently two body fluids items fecesdom and urinatingdom. The three items
varimax rotated (Table 3). The six factors, accounting for 64 tying updom, swallowingdom, and rough intercoursedom could not
% of the total variance, confirmed a similar conceptual distinc- be associated with one distinctive factor, but seemed to be part of
tivenessthanthevarimaxsolutionfromthesubmissionitems.The different forms of SM preferences. Cronbachs alpha coefficients
sixfactorscontributedtothedifferentiationofvariouspreferences for the six dimensions were the following: domination .90, toys
of sadistic behavior. The first factor (explained variance of 20. .74, beatings .92, breath .78, soft play .84, and body fluids .60. As
31 %) comprised almost the same items as the first factor from the for the submission items, the lower reliability of body fluids could
Submission scale and was therefore also associated with SM be traced back to the comparably lower number of responses to
dominance. The second factor, which accounted for 13.2 % of the the fecesdom item.
variance, was likewise associated with the use of toys such as
plugs or clamps in the play with the partner. The third orthogonal
factor covered the three items related to beatings and accounted Pleasure Gain and Frequency of Sadomasochistic Behavior
for 11.36 % of the variance. Another three items were grouped by
the fourth factor, explaining 9.71 % of the variance and including The relation between pleasure gain and the ordinally scaled
the three items associated with breath reduction. The fifth (8.96 % engagement in sadistic practices was analyzed item-wise, using
explained variance) and sixth (7.57 % variance) factors included Spearman correlations. As for the submission scale items, par-
123
Arch Sex Behav
Table 2 Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons for pleasure gain from submissive behavior across study groups
Group Pleasure gain Comparison group Mean MannWhitney Bonferroni- Effect
difference U test: Z corrected p value size r
M SD
Table 3 One-factor solution and varimax solution for the items of the Dominance scale
Item One-factor Six-factor solution
solution
(29.11 %) Domination Toys Beatings Breath Soft play Bodily fluids
(20.31 %) (13.20 %) (11.36 %) (9.71 %) (8.96 %) (7.57 %)
ticipants who described a higher pleasure gain from dominant Gender Differences
behaviors also reported a higher engagement in the respective
behaviors (Mean Spearman correlation coefficient = .55, SD = MannWhitney U tests were conducted for differences in plea-
.21; all ps\.001). sure gain between female and male participants from the groups
123
Arch Sex Behav
Table 4 Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons for pleasure gain from dominant behavior across study groups
Group Pleasure gain Comparison Mean MannWhitney Bonferroni-corrected Effect size r
group difference U test: Z p value
M SD
of dominants and switches. There was neither a statistically sig- submissive and dominant practices. Both scales allow the com-
nificant differences between female and male participants in the putation of a reliable and valid total sum score for pleasure gain,
group of dominants (Z = .47, p = .640, r = .04) nor in the group of as indicated by the factorial validity and satisfying Cronbachs
switches (Z = .56, p = .576, r = .04). alpha coefficients. Each scale covered six different groups of
common SM play (soft play, domination, beating, toys, breath
Differences in Pleasure Gain across Groups for Dominant control, and body fluids) that besides minor exceptions have been
Practices verified using principal component analyses with varimax rotation.
However, due to the unequal factor structure between the sub-
There was a significant difference in pleasure gain from dominant mission and dominance scale, the computation of sub-scores
practices across the four groups, KruskalWallis test: v2(3) = 33 besides the total scale scorescannot be recommended based on
8.58, p\.001, g2p = .52. To account for individual group differ- the results. Differences in pleasure gain not only for dominant and
ences, Bonferroni-corrected MannWhitney U tests were cal- submissive practices across but also within groups clearly demon
culated and revealed medium to large effect sizes for differences strate the potential of the checklist to differentiate people with dif
across the four groups of participants (Table 4): contrary to the ferent SM preferences. Due to the ordinally scaled assessment of
submissive items, participants from the group of dominants the engagement in SM behavior, the computation of a respective
reported the highest overall pleasure gain, whereas participants sum score is not recommended either. Instead, this measure can
from the group of submissives reported least pleasure gain. rather be used for other purposes, such as selecting subgroups of
Participants from the group of switches reported the second participants that display a certain type of behavior.
highest pleasure gain, whereas participants from the conven- In terms of gender effects, no significant differences in the
tional group scored higher than the group of submissives. attractiontotherespectiveSMpracticesbetweenmaleandfemale
Additionally, paired sample t tests were calculated for differ- participants were observed within the groups of dominants, sub-
encesbetweenthesubmissionandthedominancetotalscorewithin missives, or switches. This result shows that people that assign
groups.Significantdifferencesbetweenthetwoscoreswereobtained themselves to one of the three groups also have clear preferences
in the two groups of dominants and submissives, dominants: for the respective dominant and submissive SM plays, indepen-
t(132) = 27.61, p\.001, dz = 2.40; submissives: t(227) = 34.30, dent of gender. However, the differences in the relative frequen-
p\.001, dz = 2.13, and confirmed clear preferences for one type cies of male and female participants in the groups of submissives,
of SM behavior over the other. No significant differences were dominants, and switches imply thatunder the hypothesis of an
found for the other two groups, indicating no consistent pref- equal probability between males and female for inclusion in the
erences, switches: t(153)\1, dz = .01; conventional group: studymales more often display an engagement in dominant
t(128)\1, dz = .05. practices,whereasfemalestakeonthesubmissivepart. Thisresult
is in line with a recent study about mate preferences that has shown
that women have a generally higher preference for a dominant
Discussion partner than men do (Giebel, Moran, Schawohl, & Weierstall,
2015). Women also prefer dominant men, and even men who
The aim was to develop a tool that is useful for the assessment of are aggressive, for a short-term relationship and for the purpose
a persons attraction to SM fantasies and practices. The check- of sexual intercourse (Giebel, Weierstall, Schauer, & Elbert,
list presented in this article provides two scales that cover 2013).
123
Arch Sex Behav
123
Arch Sex Behav
Appendix 1
123
Arch Sex Behav
Appendix 2
123
Arch Sex Behav
References Krueger, R. B. (2010a). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual masochism.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 346356. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-
Alison,L.,Santtila,P., Sandnabba, N. K., & Nordling, N. (2001). Sadomasochis- 9613-4.
tically oriented behavior: Diversity in practice and meaning. Archives of Krueger, R. B. (2010b). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 325345. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-
Sexual Behavior, 30, 112. doi:10.1023/A:1026438422383.
American PsychiatricAssociation.(2013).Diagnosticand statistical manual 9586-3.
of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Lee, E. M., Klement, K. R., & Sagarin, B. J. (2015). Double hanging during
Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Masochism as escape from self. Journal of Sex consensual sexual asphyxia: A response to Roma, Pazzelli, Pompili,
Girardi, and Ferracuti (2013) [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of
Research, 25, 2859. doi:10.1080/00224498809551444.
Beres, M. A. (2007). Spontaneous sexual consent: An analysis of sexual Sexual Behavior, 44, 17511753. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0575-4.
consent literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17, 93108. doi:10.1177/ Moser, C. (1998). S/M (sadomasochistic) interactions in semi-public settings.
0959353507072914. Journal of Homosexuality, 36, 1929. doi:10.1300/J082v36n02_02.
Bezreh,T.,Weinberg,T.S.,&Edgar,T.(2012).BDSMdisclosure andstigma Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. J. (2006). DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias. Jour
management: Identifying opportunities for sex education. American nal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 17, 91109. doi:10.1300/J05
Journal of SexualityEducation,7,3761.doi:10.1080/15546128.2012. 6v17n03_05.
650984. Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. J. (2007). Themes of SM expression. In D. Lang-
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in the behavioral and dridge, M. Barker, D. Langdridge, & M. Barker (Eds.), Safe, sane and
life sciences. New York: Scientific Plenum Press. consensual: Contemporary perspectives on sadomasochism (pp. 35
Cleugh, J. (1952). The Marquis and the Chevalier. New York: Duell, Sloan 54). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nichols, M. (2006). Psychotherapeutic issues withkinkyclients: Clinical
and Pearce.
Connolly, P. H. (2006). Psychological functioning of bondage/domination/ problems, yours and theirs. Journal of Homosexuality, 50, 281300.
sado-masochism (BDSM) practitioners. Journal of Psychology & doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_14.
Human Sexuality, 18, 79120. doi:10.1300/J056v18n01_05. ODonovan, A. (2010). Sex and sexuality across the lifespan. In C. Butler,
Cross, P. A., & Matheson, K. (2006). Understanding sadomasochism: An A. ODonovan, & E. Shaw (Eds.), Sex, sexuality and therapeutic
empirical examination of four perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, practice: A manual for therapists and trainers (pp. 129159). New
50, 133166. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_07. York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Ernulf, K. E., & Innala, S. M. (1995). Sexual bondage: A review and unob- Pitagora, D. (2013). Consent vs. coercion: BDSM interactions highlight a fine
trusive investigation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 631654. doi:10. but immutable line. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 10, 2736.
1007/BF01542185. Pokroppa, S.(1999).Sado-masochismus: Die sadomasochistische Beziehung
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flex- zu relevanten Personlichkeitsvariablen. Aachen, Unpublished diploma
thesis.
iblestatisticalpoweranalysisprogramforthesocial,behavioral,andbio-
medical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175191. doi:10. Rehor, J. E. (2015). Sensual, erotic, and sexual behaviors of women from
3758/BF03193146. thekinkcommunity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 825836.
Freud, S. (1938). Sadism and masochism. In A. A. Brill (Ed.), Basic writings doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0524-2.
Richters, J., de Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. M.
of Sigmund Freud (pp. 3032). New York: Modern Library.
Friday, N. (1980). Men in love. New York: Dell. (2008). Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in bondage
Giebel, G., Moran, J., Schawohl, A., & Weierstall, R. (2015). The thrill of anddiscipline,sadomasochismordominanceandsubmission(BDSM):
loving a dominant partner: Relationships between preference for a dom- Data from a national survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 16601668.
inant mate, sensation seeking, and trait anxiety. Personal Relationships, doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x.
22, 275284. doi:10.1111/pere.12079. Sagarin, B. J., Cutler, B., Cutler, N., Lawler-Sagarin, K. A., & Matuszewich,
Giebel, G., Weierstall, R., Schauer, M., & Elbert, T. (2013). Female attraction L. (2009). Hormonal changes and couple bonding in consensual sado-
to appetitive-aggressive men is modulated by womens menstrual cycle masochistic activity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 186200. doi:10.
and mens vulnerability to traumatic stress. Evolutionary Psychology, 1007/s10508-008-9374-5.
11, 248262. doi:10.1177/147470491301100122. Sigusch, V. (2000). Strukturwandel der Sexualitat in den letzten Jahrzehnten.
Greene,G., & Greene, C.(1974).SM:The last taboo.NewYork: Grove Press. FortschrittederNeurologieundPsychiatrie,68,97106.doi:10.1055/s-
2000-11620.
Hebert, A., & Weaver, A. (2015). Perks, problems, and the people who play:
A qualitative exploration of dominant and submissive BDSM roles. Weinberg, T. S. (1994). Research in sadomasochism: A review of socio-
Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24, 4962. doi:10.3138/cjhs. logical and social psychological literature. Annual Review of Sex
2467. Research, 5, 257277.
Hoople, T. (1996). Conflicting visions: SM, feminism and the lawa prob- Weinberg, T. S. (2006). Sadomasochism and the social sciences: A review of
lem of representation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 11(1), 177 the sociological and social psychological literature. Journal of Homo-
220. sexuality, 50, 1740. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_02.
Krafft-Ebbing, R. (1965). Psychopathia sexualis: With especial reference Williams, D. J. (2009). Deviant leisure: Rethinkingthe good, the bad, and
to the antipathic sexual instinct: A medico-forensic study. New York: the ugly. Leisure Sciences, 31, 207213. doi:10.1080/01490400802
Arcade Publishing. 686110.
123