Abstract
The present study sought to investigate how individuals in BDSM or kinky relationships leveraged communication technologies to maintain their sexual relationships. From an analysis of 321 open-ended survey responses from 162 participants, results indicated that technology was disinhibiting, particularly in negotiation, fantasy exchange, and channel selection, multimodality within checking in, planning, foreplay, and preferring face-to-face sexual communication and activity, relational maintenance, particularly within 24/7 hierarchical relationships and LDRs, as well as changes in sexual communication mediums with relational progress. These patterns emphasized that technology use, common in increasingly multimodal sexual relationships, provided a means for reductions in the perception of threat typically experienced in sexual communication by increased disinhibition. As one participant said, “Sometimes it’s easier to type things than to say them”. Findings are discussed in light of extensions to the online disinhibition effect in sexual minority relationships and sexual communication in increasingly multimodal relationships. Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, M., Kunkel, A., & Dennis, M. R. (2011). “Let’s (not) talk about that”: Bridging the past sexual experiences taboo to build healthy romantic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.482215.
Barak, A., & Fisher, W. A. (2001). Toward an internet-driven, theoretically-based, innovative approach to sex education. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552103.
Bardzell, S. (2010). Topping from the viewfinder: The visual language of virtual BDSM photographs in Second Life. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 2, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v2i4.704.
Baumeister, R. F. (1988). Masochism as escape from self. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 28–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551444.
Beres, M. A., & MacDonald, J. C. (2015). Talking about sexual consent. Australian Feminist Studies, 30, 418–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2016.1158692.
Brody, N., & Pena, J. (2013). Face threatening messages and attraction in social networking sites: reconciling strategic self-presentation with negative online perceptions. In C. Cunningham (Ed.), Social networking and impression management: Self-presentation in the digital age (pp. 205–226). New York: Lexington.
Byers, E. S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022048.
Caughlin, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2013). A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63, 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12046.
Craft, A. J. (2012). Love 2.0: A quantitative exploration of sex and relationships in the virtual world Second Life. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(4), 939–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9933-7.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dir, A. L., Cyders, M. A., & Coskunpinar, A. (2013). From the bar to the bed via mobile phone: A first test of the role of problematic alcohol use, sexting, and impulsivity-related traits in sexual hookups. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1664–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.039.
Faccio, E., Casini, C., & Cipolletta, S. (2014). Forbidden games: the construction of sexuality and sexual pleasure by BDSM “players”. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 16, 752–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.909531.
Green, T., Wilhelmsen, T., Wilmots, E., Dodd, B., & Quinn, S. (2016). Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.066.
High, A. C., & Caplan, S. E. (2009). Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.011.
Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Everett, M. K. (2013). The effects of anonymity on self-disclosure in blogs: An application of the online disinhibition effect. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12008.
Kattari, S. (2015). “Getting it”: Identity and sexual communication for sexual and gender minorities with physical disabilities. Sexuality and Culture, 19, 882–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9298-x.
Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007.
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/chb.2011.10.014.
Lever, J., Grov, C., Royce, T., & Gillespie, B. J. (2008). Searching for love in all the “write” places: Exploring Internet personals use by sexual orientation, gender, and age. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317610802411532.
Manning, J. (2013). Interpretive theorizing in the seductive world of sexuality and interpersonal communication: Getting guerilla with studies of sexting and purity rings. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2507–2520.
Manning, J. (2014). Communication and healthy sexual practices: Toward a holistic communicology of sexuality. In M. H. Eaves (Ed.), Applications in health communication: Emerging trends (pp. 263–286). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Miller, R. A. (2017). “My voice is definitely strongest in online communities”: Students using social media for queer and disability identity-making. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0040.
Montesi, J. L., Fauber, R. L., Gordon, E. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2011). The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510386833.
Noar, S. M., Carlyle, K., & Cole, C. (2006). Why communication is crucial: Meta-analysis of the relationship between safer sexual communication and condom use. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600671862.
Noland, C. M. (2010). Sex talk: The role of communication in intimate relationships. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Pitagora, D. (2013). Consent vs. coercion: BDSM interactions highlight a fine but immutable line. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 10, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/e543732013-004.
Pojanapunya, P., & Jaroenkitboworn, K. (2011). How to say “good-bye” in Second Life. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3591–3602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.010.
Rubinsky, V., & Cooke-Jackson, A. (2018). Sex as an intergroup arena: How women and gender minorities conceptualize sex, sexuality, and sexual health. Communication Studies, 69, 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1437549.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sixma, T. (2009). The Gorean community in Second Life: Rules of sexual inspired role-play. Journal for Virtual Worlds Research, 1, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v1i3.330.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295.
Tripodi, F. (2017). Facts and prejudices on sexuality of people practicing BDSM. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14, e232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.119.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020.
Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication in interpersonal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 443–479). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Whitty, M. T. (2008). Liberating or debilitating? An examination of romantic relationships, sexual relationships and friendships on the net. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1837–1850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rubinsky, V. “Sometimes It’s Easier to Type Things Than to Say Them”: Technology in BDSM Sexual Partner Communication. Sexuality & Culture 22, 1412–1431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9534-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9534-2