What Is So Appealing About Being Spanked, Flogged, Dominated, or Restrained? Answers from Practitioners of Sexual Masochism/Submission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of studies have demonstrated that BDSM (Bondage/Discipline-Domination/Submission-Sadism/Masochism) practices are not signs of mental illness. However, the reasons for engaging in such behaviors are not well understood, especially for sexual masochism or submission (m/s). A thorough review of the literature was conducted, as well as a search in Internet forums and an online survey to obtain testimonies that provide information on the origins of interest in m/s and the reasons for engaging in it. A qualitative content analysis was performed on narratives from 227 m/s practitioners. Sixteen themes emerged from this analysis, eight related to the origins of interest in m/s and eight to the reasons for engaging in m/s. The origins described were seen as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Reasons to engage in m/s were related to one of three main types of activities: use of interpersonal power; experiencing physical pain; and altering one's state of mind. These results concord with accounts found in non-academic books and small-scale studies suggesting that m/s interests are often present early in life and usually practiced to reach an altered state of mind associated with sexual arousal. Possible reasons for choosing m/s over more common means of mind alteration are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".