Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 465–473 | Cite as

The prevalence and some attributes of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: A second report

  • Eugene E. Levitt
  • Charles Moser
  • Karen V. Jamison
Article

Abstract

Nonprostitute women in the sadomasochism (S/M) subculture have been believed to be rare. A sample of 45 women from the S/M subculture of whom 34 were determined to be nonprostitutes was obtained. This sample is compared with a similar sample obtained by Breslow et al.(1985). Despite methodological differences between the present investigation and that of Breslow et al.,interstudy similarities permit conclusions about women in the S/M subculture in addition to the fact that they occur with sufficient frequency to study. The women become aware of their orientation as young adults and most are satisfied with it. They tend to be better educated and less often married than the general population. A majority designate themselves as heterosexual but a substantial minority are bisexual. They tend more often to prefer the submissive role but preference for the dominant role or no preference are found with considerable frequency. Oral sex and bondage are favored activities.

Key words

sadomasochism sadomasochistic subculture nonprostitute sadomasochistic women bondage and discipline 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Breslow, N., Evans, L., and Langley, J. (1985). On the prevalence and roles of females in the sadomasochistic subculture: Report of an empirical study.Arch. Sex. Behav. 14: 303–317.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Moser, C. A. (1979). An exploratory-descriptive study of a self-defined S/M (sadomasochistic) sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Moser, C. A., and Levitt, E. E. (1987) An exploratory-descriptive study of a sadomasochistically oriented sample.J. Sex Res. 23: 322–337.Google Scholar
  4. Scott, G. G. (1991).Erotic Power: An Exploration of Dominance and Submission Citadel Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Smith, H. and Cox, C. (1983). Dialogue with a dominatrix. In Weinberg, T., and Levi Kamel, G. W. (eds.),S & M: Studies in Sadomasochism Promethus Books, Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Spengler, A. (1977). Manifest sadomasochism of males: Results of an empirical study.Arch. Sex. Behav. 6: 441–456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Stoller, R. J. (1991).Pain & Passion: A Psychoanalyst Explores the World of S & M Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Weinberg, M., Williams, C. J., and Moser, C. (1984). The social constituents of sadomasochism.Soc. Probl. 31: 379–389.Google Scholar
  9. Weinberg, T. S., (1987). Sadomasochism in the United States: A review of recent sociological literature.J. Sex Res. 23: 50–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene E. Levitt
    • 1
  • Charles Moser
    • 2
  • Karen V. Jamison
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Psychiatric ResearchIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and St. Mary's HospitalSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Howard County Community HospitalKokomoUSA

Personalised recommendations