Exploring the Impact of Internalized Stigma on Kink Group Identification in Individuals with Kink-related Interests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kink/BDSM involves both sexual and non-sexual exchange of sensation, control, and authority, with high levels of communication to facilitate ongoing negotiation and consent. In recent years, researchers have found that some BDSM acts were identified as aspects of ‘rough sex’ rather than kink/BDSM which may mean that vital aspects of kink/BDSM negotiation and consent frameworks are not being utilized. For kink-interested individuals, accessing community may be an essential protective factor that facilitates greater practice of safety and consent protocols, and decreases the impact of stigma and discrimination. Accessing community, however, may only be possible through the act of acknowledging one’s kink interest and forming kink identities. The current study investigated the role of internalized stigma in the relationship between kink/BDSM interests and in-group identification. We found that for those interested in more common, less extreme behaviours, such as, blindfolding and tying up, internalized stigma seemed to have a negative impact on one’s positive feelings toward in-group members, and salience and importance of identification with group members. In contrast, for those interested in choking, and strangulation, we saw that internalized stigma has a positive impact on one’s investment with other in-group members. These results indicate that the impact of internalized stigma on identification with in-group members is complex and may depend on the kink/BDSM interests one investigates. Future researchers should consider investigating the impact of internalized stigma on interest and identity, while including additional factors that may impact this relationship. Additionally, we should attempt to understand how all these factors impact pathways to community, access to essential safety information, and the potential benefits of social support.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".