Women's Studies

An interdisciplinary journal

ISSN: 0049-7878 (Print) 1547-7045 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwst20

Fifty Shades of Social Distance

Barbara Thomas Coventry & Patricia Case

To cite this article: Barbara Thomas Coventry & Patricia Case (2020): Fifty Shades of Social
Distance, Women's Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00497878.2019.1695612

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2019.1695612

Published online: 23 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gwst20
WOMEN’S STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2019.1695612

Fifty Shades of Social Distance

Barbara Thomas Coventry and Patricia Case
University of Toledo, Toledo

For nearly a century, social scientists have explored various dimensions and
applications of social distance. Bogardus invited a broad use of the concept
with his statement that “the measurement of social distances is to be viewed
simply as a means for securing adequate interpretations of the varying
degrees and grades of understanding and feeling that exist in social situa-
tions,” (“Measuring Social Distance” 299). A familiar application of social
distance may be the NIMBY (not in my backyard) phenomenon regarding
land use from hazardous waste facilities to group homes. In these situations,
residents may concede the need for such facilities, but they do not want them
close to their homes (Dear 288). Research has found that attitudes about such
social situations are mediated by the perceived effect on one’s personal stake
in the situation (Cook 293; Schwartz & Rabinovitz 105). The idea of social
distance argues that the more closely related to the situation you perceive
yourself greatly influences your tolerance. For example, a group home is
a good idea as long as it does not interfere with your property values or
perceived safety. Research has also found that neighbors’ actual experiences
with group housing is assessed more positively than they had expected prior
to social contact, so in these cases, closer social distance increased tolerance
(Cook 294–5; Schwartz and Rabinovitz 105–7). Karakayali identified at least
four different ways that scholars have used social distance – affective, nor-
mative, interactive, and cultural and habitual distance (540–2). Most relevant
to this study, researchers have used social distance to explore the willingness
to accept or interact with members of stigmatized groups and people who
participate in stigmatized behaviors. In this paper, we apply the concept of
social distance to people’s acceptance of dominant/submissive relationships,
such as the one depicted in Fifty Shades of Gray.
The popularity of E.L. James’ Fifty Shades of Gray series has sparked both
popular and scholarly attention, with debates erupting about the relationship
between the two main characters (see; Crocker; Luscombe; Luscombe and
Laub; Roiphe; Bonomi, et al., “‘Double Crap!’”; De Kosnik). Some character-
ized the relationship between the two main characters, Christian Gray and
Anastasia Steele, as erotic, while others portray the interactions as

CONTACT Barbara Thomas Coventry barbara.coventry@utoledo.edu Department of Sociology and

Anthropology, University of Toledo, 2801 Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

domination and domestic abuse. The title, Fifty Shades of Gray, refers to the
narrator’s description of the mercurial personality of the title character,
Christian Gray (James 263, 269, 342, 361, 397, 444, 472, 483, 513).
However, one could also relate the title to people’s reactions to the interac-
tions between Gray and the narrator, Anastasia Steele. While reactions to the
behaviors of this couple may vary from person to person, it is also possible
that they differ based on one’s relationship to the participants in this type of
behavior. Thus, people’s reactions may not just be a judgment regarding the
behavior, but a judgment based on the closeness of the relationship of those
involved in the behavior. We seek to determine if one’s social distance to
a participant in a dominant/submissive relationship affects one’s level of
acceptance of these relationships. More specifically, we assess the social
distances from acquaintances to family members to determine if the social
distance from respondents affect their view of dominant/submissive relation-
ships. For example, we expect respondents to be more accepting of an
acquaintance being in a dominant/submissive relationship than their mother.

Attitudes toward Fifty Shades and dominant/submissive behaviors

The success of the Fifty Shades of Gray series suggests that BDSM has gone
mainstream (overlapping abbreviation that includes bondage and discipline,
dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism). E. L. James suc-
cessfully converted her Twilight fan fiction into a multi-book deal, with the
Fifty Shades trilogy selling over 125 million copies worldwide (Goodson).
A variety of reasons have been offered for its success. The mass marketing of
the series in grocery and book stores has separated it from many other
romance and erotica novels (Deller 859), and e-books have given readers
easy access to what some view as pornographic material (Comella 565;
Penny). The initial Fifty Shades book has been the top-selling Kindle book
(Goodson). However, van Reenen argues that Fifty Shades, and not some
other erotic romance novel, became a top seller because it combined some
familiar romantic storylines with the unusual exploration of kinky sex from
the woman’s perspective (226).
Despite the popularity of the Fifty Shades series, its content has led to
diverse reactions and debates. Some describe the subject matter as erotic or
pornographic (Comella 563; Deller et al. 859; Penny). Penny suggests that
part of the criticism that the series has received is because it is pornography
targeting women readers, not men. Furthermore, the women in question are
not limited to the young but directed at older women, characterizing the
books as “mommy porn.” However, other writers view the social contact
depicted in Fifty Shades as something else than a positive depiction of BDSM.
Exploring the popularity of the series, van Reenen asks: “did readers overlook
abusive patterns of behaviour because they were attractively packaged?”
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 3

(228). Dines argues that James in Fifty Shades has been able to convince
women that sexual cruelty is “hot sex,” describing the book as a romance
novel “on steroids … in which overt sexual sadism masquerades as adoration
and love.” Downing takes a broad view of the abusive behavior of Gray. She
characterizes Gray as a man with “squeaky-clean” BDSM ethics because he
insists on consent and participates in only “safe” activities but still has
questionable ethics because of his stalking of Anastasia, controlling her
consumption of food, and directing her to use contraceptives (Downing 96).
Numerous bloggers, journalists, and scholars have expressed diverse opi-
nions about the social contact between Anastasia Steele and Christian Gray but
few research studies have examined people’s attitudes toward the behavior
depicted in the Fifty Shades series. Rye et al., who examined attitudes toward
BDSM among 94 undergraduate women, found that these women had varied
reactions that resembled a normal distribution, as their responses were neutral
to just slightly positive attitudes toward BDSM (346). Lanciano et al. compared
25 Italian, erotophobic and erotophilic women between the ages of 31 and 64
who had seen the movie, Fifty Shades of Gray. They found differences between
erotophobic and erotophilic women, with erotophobic respondents expressing
more sex guilt and moral evaluation of the movie, while erotophilic women
reported more fantasies and reflections than the other respondents did
(Lanciano et al. 559). Despite these explicit differences in attitudes, from an
analysis of implicit responses, these women showed similar moral evaluations
of BDSM scenes from the Fifty Shades of Gray movie.
Bonomi et al. examined 35 young-adult women’s perceptions of the
relationship between Christian Gray and Anastasia Steele (141). Their parti-
cipants also expressed diverse views of the relationship. Although they
considered some aspects of Anastasia and Christian’s relationship, such as
the helicopter and glider rides, as exciting and romantic, the young women in
the study “consistently expressed grave concern over Christian’s controlling,
manipulative and emotionally abusive behavior and anger in sexual interac-
tions” (Bonomi et al. 145). Though these women voiced their deep concern
about these behaviors, they also were sympathetic toward Christian and
rationalized his behavior. Relatively few participants accused Anastasia of
being a party to their unhealthy relationship; most of the young women did
not blame Anastasia and indicated that it is often difficult to “speak-up” in
such a relationship. Lastly, Bonomi et al. found that these women clearly
expressed which behaviors they would accept in their own relationships
(142). The behaviors that these participants indicated that they would pro-
hibit were being stalked and controlled, having their needs disrespected, and
having a partner who acted angry during sexual encounters.
Case and Coventry had men and women assess 14 behaviors based on the
interactions between Christian Gray and Anastasia Steele in the Fifty Shades
of Gray trilogy. They found that respondents tended to agree that one should
4 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

be able to require monogamy from their partner and negotiate suitable

behavior, but they objected to behaviors such as punishing partners if they
were disobedient, using technology to find their partner under any circum-
stance, and requiring things like eating healthy foods, beauty regimens, and
dressing in certain ways. In addition, men and women did not significantly
differ in their assessments of these behaviors, except that men tended to
support negotiating behaviors more than women (Case and Coventry 644).
In conclusion, the existing research has often focused on women’s attitudes
who typically belong to particular age groups (either predominately young-
adult or middle-age women). However, Case and Coventry’s study suggest
men and women may differ in their attitudes toward dominant/submissive
relationships. Therefore, this research seeks to explore if both men and
women view people involved in a dominant/submissive relationship as abu-
sive or being abused and if the closeness of the respondent’s relationship to
the participants affects their judgments.

Social distance
Social distance is closely associated with Bogardus’ social distance scale that
asks respondents to indicate their willingness to participate with members of
different racial or ethnic groups. In his first attempt to measure social
distance, Bogardus had students place racial and ethnic groups in three
categories: (1) those to which a friendly feeling was held, (2) those to
which neutral feelings were felt, and (3) those who aroused feelings of dislike
(“Social Distance and Its Origins” 216–7). As Bogardus refined his measure
of social distance, he asked business people and public school teachers to rate
39 ethnic and racial groups on a seven-point scale – (1) “To close kinship by
marriage,” (2) “To my clubs as personal chums,” (3) “To my street as
neighbors,” (4) “To employment in my occupation in my country,” (5) “To
citizenship in my country,” (6) “As a visitor only to my country,” and (7)
“Would exclude from my country” (“Measuring Social Distance” 301).
In later work, Bogardus extended the application of social distance beyond
racial groups to occupational and religious groups and used 100 “judges” to
determine which social contact should be included in a social distance scale
(“A Social Distance Scale” 265). He gave the judges a list of 60 single-
sentence descriptions and asked them to assess the degree of social distance
involved in the 60 different descriptions of social contact by separating them
into seven different degrees of social distance, specifying that each of the
seven areas should contain at least one description (68). The items of the
resulting social distance scale were: (1) “Would marry,” (2) “Would have as
regular friends,” (3) “Would work beside in an office,” (4) “Would have
several families in my neighborhood,” (5) “Would have merely as speaking
acquaintances,” (6) “Would have live outside my neighborhood,” and (7)
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 5

“Would have live outside my country” (“A Social Distance Scale” 269). While
the extremes of Bogardus’ scales both dealt with marriage and barring from
one’s country, Bogardus’ earlier scale contained more national-level measures
than the later scale (“Social Distance and Its Origins” 301; “A Social Distance
Scale” 269). The later, judge-derived scale contained less macro-level
contacts, such as neighborhood” (“A Social Distance Scale” 269). Bogardus
and other researchers replicated the study of acceptance of various racial and
ethnic groups, with updates to reflect changes in American society (see
Bogardus’ “Changes in Racial Distance”; “Racial Distance Changes”; A Forty-
Year Racial Distance Study; Owen et al.; Parrillo and Donoghue “Updating
the Bogardus”; “The National Social Distance Study”).
Besides replicating Bogardus’ study of acceptance of racial and ethnic
groups in the United States, scholars have adapted the scale to examine
other areas of social acceptance. Two modifications that are particularly
applicable to our research deal with the study of other stigmatized groups
or activities and adjustments of the scale. Researchers have explored social
distance attitudes toward people with various mental disorders (see
Mannarini and Boffo) and Hepatitis C (see Suarez and Redmond). In addi-
tion, Shechory and Idisis adapted the Bogardus scale to study one’s will-
ingness to have social contact with sexual assault victims and sex offenders.
In their modified social distance scale, the farthest level of social contact
involved a willingness to live in the same neighborhood as a sex offender/
victim, while the closest level of social contact was based on one’s willingness
to marry a sex offender/victim (Shechory and Idisis 654).
Childs’ work on interracial marriage suggests that since the time that
Bogardus developed his scale in the 1920s and 1930s greater refinement
may be necessary, especially when assessing an individual’s acceptance of
intimate interaction. She describes how her sister never objected to Childs’
relationship with an African American man, inviting them over to their
home and giving them wedding and holiday gifts. However, although
Childs’ sister seemingly accepted a sister’s interracial relationship, she
would not accept her daughter’s interracial prom date, refusing to let the
young, African American man into her house (4). Thus, it appears that some
people distinguish between different family members in terms of social
distance. Indeed, Bogardus recognized this possibility. When he refined his
measurement of social distance, Bogardus included distinction among mar-
riage participants that addresses the issue of interracial relationships within
Childs’ family. Besides “Would marry” that was included in the seven-point
scale, judges were also asked to assess “Would be willing to have my brother
or sister marry” and “Would be willing to have my son or daughter marry”
(“A Social Distance Scale” 266–7). We seek to reintroduce and expand on
these micro-relationship distinctions of social distance and apply them to
6 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

men and women’s views of the dominant/submissive relationship depicted in

the Fifty Shades of Gray series.

Methods
The focus of this research is to determine whether social distance affects
people’s level of acceptance of the dominant/submissive relationships. The
data used in this analysis are part of a larger survey that the authors created
around themes from the Fifty Shades series of books by E.L. James. We
recruited 500 American citizens living in the United States using Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to deliver the survey, and paid participants $2.00.
We excluded 19 respondents who were not US citizens and two others who
failed to complete the questionnaire, thus reducing our sample size to 479.
While MTurk participants may be characterized as professional survey taker,
MTurk administrative results show that only two of our respondents had
previously taken surveys on MTurk. Men were slightly over-represented
(51%), while the sample was predominantly White (79% White, compared
to 7% Black, 6% Asian, 4% Latino, 3% multiracial, and 1% Native American).
Respondents varied in age between 19 and 74 years old, with a mean age
of 35.
We asked respondents about their views on dominant/submissive relation-
ships based on six different social connections – acquaintances, all of their
friends, close friends, siblings, parents, and children. We asked respondents
to rank their level of agreement on a scale in which 1 indicated they fully
disagreed, while 7 represented full agreement. Below are five questions that
we asked respondents regarding dominant/submissive relationships that were
repeated for each of the six different social connections. Where a “person” is
indicated below, the questionnaire had acquaintances, all of their friends,
close friends, siblings, parents, and children.

(1) If I learned that a “person” was involved in a dominant/submissive

relationship where s/he was the submissive, I would consider him/her
abused.
(2) If I learned that a “person” was involved in a dominant/submissive
relationship where s/he was the dominant, I would consider him/her
abusive.
(3) I would advise a “person” to leave a dominant/submissive relationship
where s/he was the submissive.
(4) I would advise a “person’s” partner to leave a dominant/submissive
relationship where he or she was the submissive.
(5) I would not comment on a “person’s” relationships.
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 7

In addition, when we inquired about a parent’s possible involvement in

a dominant/submissive relationship, this additional question was also asked:
I would only comment on my parent’s relationships if s/he was involved with
someone other than my other parent.

Furthermore, we did not mention the Fifty Shades series before asking
respondents these questions because we wanted them to think of dominant/
submissive relationships in terms of real-life relationships, not fictional
characters. Although the Institutional Review Board was aware that the
Fifty Shades series played a role in the development of the study, we were
allowed to omit mentioning it in the survey’s informed consent information,
so that it would not directly affect respondents’ answers.
If social distance affects men’s and women’s level of acceptance of the
dominant/submissive relationships, then the closer the social relationship,
the less accepting respondents will be of these relationships, as indicated by
higher mean scores on questions 1 through 4. More specifically, for the first
four questions, we expect scores to get higher as the level of the relationship
gets closer to the respondent. We expect scores to be higher for siblings, for
example, than for close friends. For question 5, we expect the closer the social
distance, the more likely that respondents will disagree that they “would not
comment on a ‘person’s’ relationships,” thus resulting in lower scores.
We constructed indexes for each of the six social distances – acquain-
tances, all friends, close friends, siblings, parents, and children – utilizing
confirmatory factor analysis and reliability tests. A confirmatory factor ana-
lysis of the first five questions produced one factor with an Eigen value
greater than 1.0. “I would not comment on a ‘person’s’ relationship” did
not load high on this factor and was excluded. The reliability for the indexes
of each social distance are .95 or higher.
To determine whether social distance affects people’s level of acceptance of
the dominant/submissive relationships, we performed a series of t-tests that
compare the means of the questions about dominant/submissive relation-
ships and the index for the adjacent social distance (e.g., acquaintances and
all friends, all friends and close friends, etc.). To expand upon previous
studies that focused on the views of women who predominately belong to
a specific age group, we also tested for differences between men and women,
people of color and whites, and those under 30 years old (38.6%) and those
30 years old and older (61.4%).

Results
An examination of means indicates relatively high disagreement with the
statements about dominant/submissive relationships (see Table 1). All the
mean scores for the first four questions and the indexes are less than four
8 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of perceptions of D/S relationships and indexes of
perceptions by social distance.
All
Acquaintance Friends Close Friends Sibling Parent Child
Indexes X 2.67 2.75 2.81 3.00 3.08 3.35
S 1.68 1.72 1.79 1.87 1.90 1.98
Abused X 2.81 2.85 2.93 3.16 3.27 3.54
S 1.85 1.84 1.93 2.04 2.08 2.16
Abusive X 2.83 2.85 2.84 2.96 3.08 3.15
S 1.84 1.82 1.89 1.94 2.01 2.00
Leave X 2.55 2.70 2.80 3.10 3.17 3.54
S 1.75 1.82 1.90 2.06 2.07 2.22
Partner Leave X 2.50 2.60 2.68 2.79 2.84 3.13
S 1.69 1.73 1.81 1.86 1.88 2.01
Not Comment X 5.17 4.98 4.46 4.17 4.16 3.44
S 1.78 1.76 1.94 2.02 2.04 2.18
Scale: 1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree.

(the neutral point of the scale in which 1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree),
indicating responses on average fell on the disagreement end of the scale.
Thus, respondents tend to oppose statements about dominants being abusive,
submissives being abused, and telling participants to leave the relationship.
While the means suggest that the respondents tend to disagree with state-
ments about dominant/submissive relationships, the standard deviations
indicate that the responses of our survey takers vary. Standard deviations
of all the answers range from a low of 1.68 for the acquaintance index to
a high of 2.22 for the question about telling their child to leave a dominant/
submissive relationship. In addition, for each question asked about the
dominant/submissive relationships, respondents’ answers fell at every point
on the seven-point scale (data not shown), indicating a range of variability of
responses.
If we focus on the means of the individual items of the indexes, on
average, respondents disagree the most with the statement that indicates
that they would tell an acquaintance’s partner to leave the dominant/sub-
missive relationship with the lowest mean score (X  ¼ 2.50, see Table 1). Yet
while none of the mean responses indicate agreement with the statements
included in the indexes, two items approach the neutral point of the scale –
whether they would consider their child as being abused if their child was
in the submissive role and if they would tell their child to leave the
relationship (X ¼ 3.54 and X  ¼ 3.54, respectively). In addition to the
items included in the indexes, we also asked respondents to indicate their
level of agreement to a statement that suggested they would not comment
on the person’s relationships. The mean responses for this question vary the
most by social distance (X  ¼ 5.17 for acquaintance compared to X  ¼ 3.44
for child).
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 9

The means also show that, for the indexes, each mean score increases as
the social distance grows closer (see Table 1). In other words, all friends have
a higher mean index score than acquaintances, close friends’ mean score is
higher than all friends’, siblings’ higher than close friends’, parents’ higher
than siblings’, and children’s higher than parents’ mean score. Turning our
attention to the individual questions that comprise the indexes, we found
only one exception to the increasing means by social distance relationships –
if the respondents would find a person abusive if he or she was a dominant
(see the means for all friends compared to close friends). In addition, we
examine the means for the question that is not included in the indexes –
respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the
statement that they would not comment on the relationship. As expected,
the means decrease based on the social distance of the participant, with
acquaintance having the highest mean and child the lowest mean (X  ¼ 5.17
and X ¼ 3.44, respectively).
The next step in our analyses was to determine if there was a significant
difference in the mean scores based on social distance relationships. We
conducted multiple, paired t-tests in which we paired each given social
distance relationship with the social distance relationship(s) closest to it.
For example, we compared the means of acquaintances and all friends for
each question about the dominant/submissive relationships and the
dominant/submissive indexes. If respondents disagree more with state-
ments about the social distance connection that is closer to them, then the
mean differences should be negative. For the indexes, the results of every
paired t-tests show significant negative mean differences (see Table 2).
Therefore, all friends have a significantly higher mean index score than
acquaintances (d  = −.075, p < .001) and close friends have significantly
higher score than all friends (d  = −.075, p < .001), and so on, with the
greatest difference being between parent and child (d = −.250, p < .001).
These results support our hypothesis that respondents will be less accept-
ing of dominant/submissive relationships as the social distance of the
participants becomes closer to them.

Table 2. Mean differences (dÞ of perceptions of D/S for paired relationships.

Acquaintance vs. Friends vs. Close Friend Sibling vs. Parent
Friends Close vs. Parent vs. Child
(dÞ Friends (dÞ Sibling (dÞ (dÞ (dÞ
Index −.075*** −.075*** −.185*** −.089*** −.250***
Abused −.040 −.088** −.223*** −.114** −.272***
Abusive −.008 .008 −.119** −.116** −.062
Leave −.148*** −.119** −.290*** −.051 −.394***
Partner Leave −.105*** −.088* −111** −.063 −.275***
Not Comment .199*** .516*** .290*** .006 .717***
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Scale: 1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree.
10 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

Our findings for the items that comprised the indexes also tend to support
this connection between respondents’ views of dominant/submissive rela-
tionships and the social distance of a participant. Of the 20 paired relation-
ships with the individual questions, only one mean difference is not in the
hypothesized negative direction and 14 of the mean differences are signifi-
cant. The greatest significant mean difference for the index items is the
difference between the means that compared parent to child when asked if
they would tell the parent or the child to leave the relationship (d = −.394,
p < .001). Regarding the question that is not included in the indexes –
I would not comment on a “person’s” relationships – only the mean differ-
ence between siblings and parents is not significant (d  = .006, p > .10).
Respondents agreed most fully that they would not comment if their parent
was involved compared to their child, with the largest mean difference (d =
.717, p < .001). In conclusion, the findings involving the dominant/submis-
sive indexes consistently confirm the view that social distance of participant
affects respondents’ level of acceptance of dominant/submissive relation-
ships. However, the results of the individual items generally support the
hypothesis.
We also tested for differences between men and women, people of color
and whites, and those under 30 years old and those 30 years and older. No
significant mean differences in respondents’ views about participants being
abused if they are submissives or being abusive if they are dominants are
found based on the respondents’ gender, race, or age (data not shown). The
mean differences between men and women concerning telling an acquain-
tance or close friend to leave the relationship approach statistical significance
with men reporting stronger agreement than women (d = −.294 and −.330,
respectively, p < .10, data not shown), suggesting that men might be more
likely to tell an acquaintance or close friend to leave the relationship than
women. We found no differences based on age or race regarding telling
a “person” to leave a dominant/submissive relationship (data not shown).
Significant mean differences by gender, age, or race, on the other hand, are
found regarding two areas of dominant/submissive relationships – telling
a “person’s” partner to leave the dominant/submissive relationship and not
commenting on the relationship. Respondents, on average, voice a level of
disagreement about if they would tell a person’s partner to leave the relation-
ship, but women and older respondents more fully disagree than men and
younger counterparts, respectively. The negative mean differences shown in
Table 3 are indicative of men agreeing more than women and respondents
under 30 years of age agreeing more than those 30 and older that they would
tell a “person’s” partner to leave the relationship. Irrespective of gender or
age of the respondent, mean responses are lowest for acquaintances and
increase with each social distance affiliation.
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 11

Table 3. Mean differences (dÞ of tell “person’s” partner

to leave a D/S relationship by gender and age.
Gender Age
(d) (dÞ
Acquaintance −.319* −.143
Friends −.284 −.157
Close Friend −.361* −.242
Sibling −.356* −.348*
Parent −.383* −.344
Child −.300 −.133
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Scale: 1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree.

Focusing more specifically on the mean differences regarding telling

a “person’s partner to leave a dominant/submissive relationship, we found
significantly different means for men and women concerning respondents’
level of agreement. Women’s mean level of disagreement is significantly
greater than men’s for telling an acquaintance’s (d = −.319, p < .05, see
Table 3), close friend’s (d = −.361, p < .05), sibling’s (d = −.356, p < .05),
and parent’s partner (d = −.383, p < .05) to leave the relationship. While the
mean difference by gender for all friends approached statistical significance
(d = −.284, p < .10), there is no significant difference between men and
women about telling a child’s partner to leave the relationship. Although
men and women significantly differ about telling the majority of the social
distance affiliations’ partners to leave, our results produce only one sig-
nificant difference by age. Older and younger respondents significantly
differ in their degree of disagreement about telling their sibling’s partner
to leave the relationship (d = −.348, p < .05), with those 30 years and older
disagreeing more than their younger counterparts. We found no significant
differences between People of Color and Whites in their level of agreement
about telling a “person’s” partner to leave a dominant/submissive relation-
ship (data not shown).
In Table 4, we present the mean differences by gender, race, and age on
respondents’ answers about not commenting on “person’s” dominant/submis-
sive relationship. Women and men generally give similar answers when they
are asked about not commenting on a person’s relationship, with the sole
significant difference related to commenting on a parent’s relationship if s/he is
involved with someone other than the other parent (d = −.601, p < .01). On
average, men are neutral, while women somewhat disagree that they would
comment on the relationship if the partner is someone other than the other
parent (data not shown). Our results also show racial differences on this issue
(d = −.557, p < .05). People of Color somewhat disagree that they would only
comment if the parent was involved with someone other than the other parent,
while Whites’ average responses were nearly neutral (data not shown). Our
12 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

Table 4. Mean differences (dÞ of would not comment on a D/S

relationship by gender, race, and age.
Gender (dÞ Race (dÞ Age (dÞ
Acquaintance .315 −.223 .253
Friends .173 −.367 .245
Close Friend .059 −.284 .449*
Sibling .034 −.488* .398*
Parent .091 −.155 .204
Child −.136 −.341 .245
Parent’s Partner −.601** −.557* .034
*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
Scale: 1 = fully disagree and 7 = fully agree.

results also show a significant difference by race regarding a sibling’s

relationship (d = −.488, p < .05). In this case, Whites are more likely to
agree than People of Color would agree that they would not comment on
their sibling’s relationship. We found the age differences related to people’s
responses to not commenting on a close friend’s and sibling’s relationships
(d = .449 and d
 = .398, p < .05). Those 30 years of age or older agree more that
they would not comment than those younger. In conclusion, we did not find
differences based on the respondents’ gender, race, or age regarding their views
of dominants being abusive or submissives being abused. However, we did find
differences for some of the social distance relationships when respondents were
asked about telling a “person’s” partner to leave the dominant/submissive
relationship and not commenting on the relationship.

Discussion
This research sought to reintroduce and expand on micro-relationship distinc-
tions of social distance that Bogardus suggested when he had 100 judges assess
60 items that included “Would be willing to have my brother or sister marry”
and “Would be willing to have my son or daughter marry” (“A Social Distance
Scale” 266–7). However, we go beyond asking respondents to distinguish
between how acceptable dominant/submissive relationship would be for their
sibling versus their child, we also request them to assess how acceptable it
would be for their parents, close friends, all friends, and acquaintances to
engage in such a relationship. While our findings are consistent with previous
research that respondents, on average, have somewhat favorable attitudes
toward dominant/submissive relationships (Rye et al. 346), the multiple, paired
t-tests that we conducted show support for our hypothesis that people are less
accepting of dominant/submissive relationships as the social distance of the
participants becomes closer to them. The analyses of the indexes consistently
follow the hypothesized pattern, while the results of the t-tests of the individual
questions are predominantly significant.
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 13

Of the few insignificant findings in our results, respondents do not

distinguish between acquaintances and all of their friends when assessing if
they would consider a submissive acquaintance or friend abused. Nor do they
differentiate between acquaintances and all of their friends and all of their
friends and close friends when considering if he or she would be abusive if
they played the dominant role. Given the means scores (approximately 2.8)
fall on the end of the scale that indicates that they disagree with the state-
ments and therefore consider the behavior somewhat acceptable for friends
and acquaintances, these results suggest that respondents may hold the
attitude that, as long as both adults consent, then what they do behind closed
doors is their business. Interestingly, while these first few insignificant results
involve the more distant social relationships studied, the other areas in which
respondents did not differentiate between social distance pairs involve closer
social affiliations. Respondents have similar views for parents and children in
terms of being abusive; they slightly disagree that their parents or children
would be abusive, if they acted as dominants. The remaining insignificant
findings deal with communicating with participants – respondents telling
their parents or siblings to leave the relationship, telling the parents’ or
siblings’ partners to leave, and not commenting on their parents’ or siblings’
relationships. Of the insignificant results related to these closer social dis-
tances, we can understand why respondents did not distinguish between
sibling and parent because switching their social distance positions could
be argued; certain individuals may feel closer to their siblings but others may
have a closer relationship with their parents. Thus, our results support the
notion that people’s attitudes toward the Fifty Shades of Gray and dominant/
submissive relationships, in general, are contextualized. Scholars have argued
that the “erotic fantasies” depicted in the popular media may differ from
what people want in their own relationships (Case and Coventry 645; van
Reenen 227). Furthermore, our findings suggest that people’s attitudes about
real-world relationships are not uniform; their levels of acceptance vary based
on the social distance of the participants.
In addition, different demographic factors may affect how people view
friends and family members who participate in dominant/submissive rela-
tionships. Gender role socialization has encouraged men to take on leader-
ship and protector roles and women to be passive and weak (see Glick and
Fiske; Moya et al.; Paynter and Leaper). Our results suggest that gender role
socialization may have an impact on some of the respondents’ answers. Men
in our sample are more likely than women to agree that they would tell some
participants to leave. Men and women significantly differ about telling an
acquaintance’s, close friend’s, sibling’s, and parent’s partners to leave the
relationship. Similar to telling a person to leave, men are more likely than
women to tell a partner to leave. We also asked a less specific question in
which respondents expressed their level of agreement with statements
14 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

indicating that they would not comment on the relationship. Only the
acquaintance’s relationship approached statistical significance, with women
more likely than men to agree that they would not comment. Lastly, the
question with the largest significant mean difference by gender asks if they
would comment if their parents’ partner is someone other than their other
parent. Again, men indicate that they would comment more than the women
did. Therefore, while growing egalitarianism in gender roles may have con-
tributed to the men and women often having similar views on dominant/
submissive relationships (see Brooks and Bolzendahl; Davis and Greenstein),
each significant gender difference in our analyses support the traditional
gender roles in which men take a more active, less passive role than women.
Generational change has been found to be a prime factor in gender roles
becoming more egalitarian (Brooks and Bolzendahl 128), and attitudes
toward social issues often differ by age with older people having more
traditional and conservative attitudes than young adults (Byrne 257;
Connery and Davidson 186; Kezer et al 60). Therefore, the age of respon-
dents may affect their views about dominant/submissive relationships. We
found that age has a significant effect on questions related to communicating
about a few of the social distance relationships; age is significantly related to
respondents’ level of agreement with telling a person’s partner to leave the
relationship and if they would not comment on the relationship. Older
respondents more strongly disagreed than their younger counterparts that
they would tell a sibling’s or parent’s partner to leave the relationship.
Similarly, those 30 years of age or older agree more strongly than those
younger that they would not comment on a close friend’s or sibling’s
relationship. Thus, older generations appear to be more reluctant than
relatively young adults to discuss sexual activities with their close friends
and some family members.
McCallum and Peterson lament the lack of studies focusing on demo-
graphic variables that may contribute to the self-reporting of sexual attitudes
and behaviors. To address this dearth of research, they examined the effect
that race has on reported sexual attitudes and behaviors on a sample of
undergraduate women (2289). McCallum and Peterson found support for
their hypothesis that those who belong to a racial minority group report
more conservative attitudes than Whites because minority group members
may fear that if they indicate that they approve of less socially acceptable
attitudes and behaviors (including the use of dominance) that they would
reinforce negative stereotypes about their group (2295). Our results show few
differences between People of Color and Whites regarding their attitudes
toward acquaintance, friends, and family members participating in domi-
nant/submissive relationships. We found that Whites indicate higher levels of
agreement with statements that they would not comment on their friends’
(which was borderline significant) or siblings’ relationships. In addition,
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 15

People of Color disagreed more than Whites with the statement that they
would only comment if their parents’ partners were someone other than their
other parent. One could argue that these results are consistent with People of
Color’s preference to give the more socially accepted answer, if their greater
willingness to comment compared to Whites includes some remarks that
could provide participants with negative feedback on a possibly socially
unacceptable behavior.
Our findings expand on the existing research on dominant/submissive
relationships, such as those depicted in James’ Fifty Shades of Gray series
by studying a more heterogeneous sample. Although we found a limited
number of the significant differences based on gender, race, and age, their
discovery should encourage future researchers to study diverse groups and
explore these possible differences. While our sample included both men and
women varying in age from 19 to 74 years old and who identified with
a variety of racial/ethnic groups, a more diverse sample could have produced
even more significant findings. For example, our analyses produced only one
significant difference by race from a sample that is predominantly White,
with African Americans and Latinos in particular being underrepresented.
Ideally, future research on sexual behavior will have representative samples
whose results can be more confidently generalized to the population.
We hope that our study inspires new applications of social distance scales.
As we reflect on our findings, we identify some refinements that could be
explored in future research. We constructed our social distance scale focusing
on the micro end of Bogardus’ social distances because we are exploring
attitudes toward private activities. Therefore, our social distances move from
acquaintances to friends to family members. However, in some cases, blood
may not be thicker than water; some people may have a closer relationship
with close friends than with their siblings. This is an empirical question that
should be included in future research.
Other subtleties involving familial social distance also could be explored in
future studies. First, researchers could examine if respondents have or ever
had family members included in the scale, i.e., they had at least one sibling,
parent, and child. A respondent who is answering hypothetically instead of
relating responses to a real person may give more accepting ratings to
statements about hypothetical versus real people. Also, the respondent’s
position relative to a sibling’s place in their family’s birth order may also
influence the respondent’s level of acceptance of the sibling’s participation in
a dominant/submissive relationship. Older siblings may view this type of
relationship as inappropriate for a younger sibling, especially if that sibling
has only reached adulthood. On the other hand, respondents also might be
less accepting of dominant/submissive relationships among the elderly, as
Pratt and Schmall (140) found a negative relationship between emotional
closeness to elderly relatives and acceptance of such sexual behaviors as sex
16 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

among nursing home residents or unmarried senior citizens and cohabitation

by the elderly. While our study addresses some of the issues concerning
people’s attitudes toward acquaintance, friends, and family members’ parti-
cipation in dominant/submissive relationships, additional shades of social
distance remain to be explored.

Works cited
Bogardus, Emory S. “Measuring Social Distance.” Sociology and Social Research, vol. 9, 1925a,
pp. 299–308.
_____. “Social Distance and Its Origins.” Sociology and Social Research, vol. 9, 1925b, pp.
216–25.
_____. “A Social Distance Scale.” Sociology and Social Research, vol. 17, 1933, pp. 265–71.
_____. “Changes in Racial Distance.” International Journal of Attitude and Opinion Research,
vol. 1, 1947, pp. 55–62.
_____. “Racial Distance Changes in the United States during the past Thirty Years.” Sociology
and Social Research, vol. 43, 1958, pp. 127–35.
_____. A Forty-Year Racial Distance Study. U of Southern California P, 1967.
_____, et al. “Young Women’s Perceptions of the Relationship in Fifty Shades of Grey.”
Journal of Women’s Health, vol. 25, 2016, pp. 139–48.
Bonomi, Amy E., et al. “‘Double Crap!’ Abuse and Harmed Identity.” Journal of Women’s
Health, vol. 22, no. 9, 2013, pp. 733–44. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4344.
Brooks, Clem, and Catherine Bolzendahl. “The Transformation of US Gender Role Attitudes:
Cohort Replacement, Social-Structural Change, and Ideological Learning.” Social Science
Research, vol. 33, no. 1, 2004, pp. 106–33. doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00041-3.
Byrne, Zinta S., et al. “A Comparison of Responses on the Attitudes toward Women Scale and
Attitudes toward Feminism Scale: Is There A Difference between College-Age and
Later-Life Adults with the Original Norms?” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, vol. 44, no. 4, 2011, pp. 248–64. doi:10.1177/0748175611418982.
Case, Patricia, and Barbara Thomas Coventry. “Fifty Shades of Feminism: An Analysis of
Feminist Attitudes and ‘Grey Behaviors’.” Sexuality & Culture, vol. 22, no. 2, 2018, pp.
632–50. doi:10.1007/s12119-017-9487-x.
Childs, Erica Chito. Navigating Interracial Borders: Black-White Couples and Their Social
World. Rutgers UP, 2005.
Comella, Lynn. “Fifty Shades of Erotic Stimulus.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, 2013,
pp. 563–66. doi:10.1080/14680777.2013.786269.
Connery, H., and K. M. Davidson. “A Survey of Attitudes to Depression in the General
Public: A Comparison of Age and Gender Differences.” Journal of Mental Health, vol. 15,
no. 2, 2006, pp. 179–89. doi:10.1080/09638230600608818.
Cook, James R. “Neighbors’ Perceptions of Group Homes.” Community Mental Health
Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, 1997, pp. 287–99. doi:10.1023/A:1025043023534.
Crocker, Lizzie. “More Shades of Grey.” Newsweek, vol. 160, no. 4/5, 2012, pp. 11.
Davis, Shannon N., and Theodore N. Greenstein. “Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors,
and Consequences.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 35, 2009, pp. 87–105. doi:10.1146/
annurev-soc-070308-115920.
De Kosnik, Abigail. “Fifty Shades and the Archive of Women’s Culture.” Cinema Journal, vol.
54, no. 3, 2015, pp. 116–25. doi:10.1353/cj.2015.0037.
 WOMEN’S STUDIES 17

Dear, Michael. “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American
Planning Association, vol. 58, no. 3, 1992, pp. 288–300. doi:10.1080/01944369208975808.
Deller, Ruth A., et al. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Reading the Fifty Shades ‘phenom-
enon’.” Sexualities, vol. 16, no. 8, 2013, pp. 859–86. doi:10.1177/1363460713508899.
Dines, Gail. “Why are Women Devouring Fifty Shades of Grey?” CounterPunch, 27 July 2012,
www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/27/why-are-women-devouring-fifty-shades-of-grey. Accessed
4 Oct. 2016.
Downing, Lisa. “Safewording! Kinkophobia and Gender Normativity in Fifty Shades of Grey.”
Psychology and Sexuality, vol. 4, no. 1, 2013, pp. 92–102. doi:10.1080/19419899.2012.740067.
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile
and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 70, no. 3, 1996,
pp. 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.
Goodson, Jessica. “Grey Sold over 1 Million Copies in Four Days.” Entertainment Weekly, 22
Jun. 2015, www.ew.com/article/2015/06/22/el-james-grey-book-sales. Accessed 4 Oct.
2016.
James, E.L. Fifty Shades of Grey. First Vintage Books, Random House, 2011.
_____. Fifty Shades Darker. First Vintage Books, Random House, 2012a.
_____. Fifty Shades Freed. First Vintage Books, Random House, 2012b.
Karakayali, Nedim. “Social Distance and Affective Orientations.” Sociological Forum, vol. 24,
no. 3, 2009, pp. 538–61. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01119.x.
Kezer, Murat, et al. “Age Differences in Privacy Attitudes, Literacy and Privacy Management
on Facebook.” Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, vol. 10, no.
1, 2016, pp. 52–71. doi:10.5817/CP2016-1-2.
Lanciano, Tiziana, et al. “Fifty Shades of Unsaid: Women’s Explicit and Implicit Attitudes
Towards Sexual Morality.” Europe’s Journal of Psychology, vol. 12, no. 4, 2016, pp. 550–66.
doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i4.1124.
Luscombe, Belinda. “Can a Risqué Novel Go Mainstream?” Time, 29 Dec. 2014, pp. 103.
Luscombe, Belinda. “The Grey Area: How the Movie Fifty Shades of Grey Set Out to Craft a
Feminist Romance from a Novel of Sex, Violence, and Domination.” Time, 16 Feb. 2015,
pp. 38–44.
Luscombe, Belinda and Gillian Laub. “James’ Bondage.” Time, 9 Apr. 2012, pp. 52–54.
Mannarini, Stefania, and Marilisa Boffo. “Anxiety, Bulimia, Drug and Alcohol Addiction,
Depression, and Schizophrenia: What Do You Think about Their Aetiology,
Dangerousness, Social Distance, and Treatment? A Latent Class Analysis Approach.”
Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, vol. 50, no. 1, 2015, pp. 27–37. doi:10.1007/
s00127-014-0925-x.
McCallum, Ethan B., and Zoe D. Peterson. “Effects of Experimenter Contact, Setting, Inquiry
Mode, and Race on Women’s Self-Report of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors: An
Experimental Study.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 44, no. 8, 2015, pp. 2287–97.
doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0590-5.
Moya, Miguel, et al. “It’s for Your Own Good: Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Reactions to
Protectively Justified Restrictions.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 33, no.
10, 2007, pp. 1421–34. doi:10.1177/0146167207304790.
Owen, Carolyn A., et al. “A Half-Century of Social Distance Research: National Replication of
the Bogardus Studies.” Sociology and Social Research, vol. 66, 1977, pp. 80–98.
Parrillo, Vincent N., and Christopher Donoghue. “Updating the Bogardus Social Distance
Studies: A New National Study.” The Social Science Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, 2005, pp.
257–71. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.011.
_____, and _____. “The National Social Distance Study: Ten Years Later.” Sociological Forum,
vol. 28, no. 3, 2013, pp. 597–614. doi:10.1111/socf.12039.
18 B. T. COVENTRY AND P. CASE

Paynter, Alexa, and Campbell Leaper. “Heterosexual Dating Double Standards in

Undergraduate Women and Men.” Sex Roles, vol. 75, no. 7/8, 2016, pp. 393–406.
doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0628-8.
Penny, Laurie. “In Defence of Fifty Shades of Grey.” New Statesman, 8 Jul. 2012, http://www.
newstatesman.com/blogs/culture/2012/07/stop-being-mean-fifty-shades-grey. Accessed 3
Oct. 2016.
Pratt, Ciara C., Vicki L. Schmall. “College Students’ Attitudes toward Elderly Sexual Behavior:
Implications for Family Life Education.” Family Relations, vol. 38, no. 2, 1989, pp. 137–41.
doi:10.2307/583665.
Roiphe, Katie. “She Works Crazy Hours. She Takes Care of the Kids. She Earns More Money.
She Manages Her Team. At the End of the Day, She Wants to Be … Spanked?” Newsweek,
vol. 159, no. 17/18, 2012, pp. 24–28.
Rye, B.J., et al. “Erotophobic or Erotophilic: What are Young Women’s Attitudes Towards BDSM?”
Psychology & Sexuality, vol. 6, no. 4, 2015, pp. 340–56. doi:10.1080/19419899.2015.1012108.
Schwartz, C., and S. Rabinovitz. “Residential Facilities in the Community for People with
Intellectual Disabilities: How Neighbours’ Perceptions are Affected by the Interaction of
Facility and Neighbour Variables.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,
vol. 14, no. 2, 2001, pp. 100–09. doi:10.1046/j.1468-3148.2001.00060.x.
Shechory, Mally, and Yael Idisis. “Rape Myths and Social Distance toward Sex Offenders and
Victims among Therapists and Students.” Sex Roles, vol. 54, no. 9/10, 2006, pp. 651–58.
doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9031-1.
Suarez, Alicia Elena, and Deidre Redmond. “Desired Social Distance from People Who Have
Hepatitis C Virus: An Exploration among Staff in Health Care, Dentistry, Drug Treatment,
and Tattoo/Body Piercing.” Substance Use & Misuse, vol. 49, no. 4, 2014, pp. 466–74.
doi:10.3109/10826084.2013.853797.
van Reenen, Dionne. “Is This Really What Women Want? an Analysis of Fifty Shades of Grey
and Modern Feminist Thought.” South African Journal of Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 2, 2014,
pp. 223–33. doi:10.1080/02580136.2014.925730.