You are on page 1of 14

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

What BDSM Teaches About Authority, Obedience and the Self:


Its Parallels with Society and Social Psychology Research

Jade D. Hines
Student No. 500320413
Ryerson University

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Abstract
This paper draws on four published articles which discuss aspects of social psychology
relating to authority, power, roles and attitudes; along with two books written by experts in the
field of BDSM, to explore how BDSM practice parallels what social psychologists have come to
know about society as a whole. In this article, BDSM is defined as 'Bondage, Discipline,
Dominance and Submission, Sadism and Masochism'. It is the practice of one party holding
power over another, possibly torturing them, consensually and as part of sexual kink, a
relationship, play or all of the above. Additionally, the term dominant refers to the party within
BDSM which commands and controls the other, and often the party which inflicts pain. The term
submissive refers to the party within BDSM which obeys and is under the command of the
dominant, often receiving pain. This paper aims to provide the reader with an understanding of
how BDSM practice involves and reflects many of the concepts which social psychologists study
and discuss, along with being a reflection of the power dynamics which exist within our society.

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

A large part of social psychology is the study of power, authority and obedience, within
all aspects of our society. However, there is often an overlooked aspect/ lifestyle within society
which is nevertheless important to many and a strong reflection of social psychologist's concepts.
BDSM can be a lifestyle, it can be the nature of a relationship or it can be a purely sexual
experience. Within mainstream society it is largely portrayed as a type of extreme, dangerous
sexuality involving whips, chains, leather and uniforms, and for many that is what it is. It is also
a reflection of society and of our interactions. Most people are familiar with the BDSM fantasies
where one person takes on an traditionally authoritative role while the other takes on a role
which is subservient to them (a police officer and criminal, for example). BDSM can also simply
involve two people where one takes on a dominant role in a relationship, or just give and/ or
receive pain. The important element is that BDSM reflects many of the theories which social
psychologists study every day. Both the Milgram experiment and BDSM teach us about
obedience. Both the Stanford Prison experiment and BDSM teach us about the power of the
situation, and how our attitudes are shaped by the roles we inhabit. Both social psychologists and
BDSM practitioners are familiar with the concept of the self, our ideal selves and who we
believe we ought to be and how incongruity between them can cause tension and depression. In
all social interaction there is more at play than people believe from casual observation; while
BDSM might appear to be entirely sexual fetish it is an excellent reflection of society and the
power dynamics within.
Navarick's (2009) article examines the Milgram experiment in detail, specifically
discussing why 65% of Milgram's participants displayed full obedience in (supposedly) shocking
another human being (p. 155). In doing so, Navarick's article touches on a number of elements of
obedience which are present not only in Milgram's experiment, but also BDSM. One finding was

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

how participants, when questioned about why they obeyed the experimenter, responded "I was
just following orders." Navarick (2009) quotes Milgram, ""Behaviour that is unthinkable in an
individual who is acting on his own may be executed without hesitation when carried out under
orders."" (p. 156). In this Milgram shows that there is a liberating element to obedience in that
because the participant is acting as expected in the eyes of an authority figure, they are free to act
in ways they wouldn't normally. Within BDSM play submissives often report that they feel a
liberation in "just following orders", in surrendering to an authority figure (Brame, Brame &
Jacobs, 1993, p. 208). There is a sense of "inevitability" which accompanies surrender, and this
can manifest itself through bondage (where the submissive is restrained and helpless to resist)
and D/s scenarios (where the submissive directly carries out orders from the dominant). This
desire to submit is not due to low self-esteem, or a lack of self worth. In fact, many submissives
report that outside of a BDSM context, they are assertive and even competitive with others (p.
217). Bondage has been found to be popular among people who normally resist authority, as they
derive satisfaction (and possibly relaxation) from knowing that their fate and actions are in the
hands of a dominant party. The submissive often finds the freedom to do something which
normally they would not be able to, BDSM is taboo and cognitive dissonance is a factor when
(for example) a normally assertive man finds themselves wishing to submit to a woman. Within a
BDSM context, the man is able to submit as the power dynamic is safe, and their well-being is
overseen by the Dominant party; conditions which have been proven to make a person more
readily obedient. This is one way how BDSM reflects what social psychologists have learned
about obedience, many people feel liberated from the consequences of their actions when there is
an authority present who (supposedly) takes responsibility.
Another finding in Milgram's experiment (which has been found in additional research

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

including Navarick's) was that over time, a subject will become increasingly respondent to
orders. Navarick (2009) found that the longer the experiment continued, the less likely a
participant was to leave. With the most participants leaving at the tenth intensity level (the one
where the 'student' demanded to be let free) before dropping off dramatically, even when the
'student' again makes a plea to stop at the twentieth level (p. 167). There is a level of habituation
which occurs, as well as a "process of self-justification wherein each repetition of the act added
to the psychological cost that would be incurred by quitting and acknowledging that the previous
obedience was an error in judgement." (p. 166). This repetition and habituation is seen in
BDSM , often when a submissive is first introduced to the authority of a dominant. In one
example, the dominant instructs the submissive to refer to her as "Mistress" and is to begin and
end every sentence as such. At first there is a struggle within the submissive who experiences
cognitive dissonance at the prospect of submitting to another when she is normally assertive and
independent. Early responses to the dominant are quiet and restrained, however as the scene
continues the submissive begins to respond clearer and more quickly than she had at the
beginning. What is happening is what Navarick has observed, the submissive begins to become
habituated to being submissive and the initial aversion has subsided. Cognitively this is because
the submissive has accepted her role within the scene, justifying her submission by knowing that
she doesn't wish for it to stop and are happy doing what is asked of her. To the point where the
dominant no longer needs to re-enforce the rule like they might have early on, the replies become
nearly automatic. This shows a parallel between how social psychologists have come to
understand obedience and the realities many people engaging in BDSM discover.
Another parallel between social psychologist's findings and BDSM is the focus of the
next article; obedience is greatly determined by the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure.

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Toorn et al. (2010) argued, "Our findings suggest that in the minds of individuals the structural
notion of the authority's power is translated into the personal attribute of legitimacy." (p. 137).
Toorn et al. (2010) found that individuals are more likely to deffer their decisions to an authority,
accept their suggestions and have more favourable opinions and more satisfaction on the
outcome of a situation if it were "decided by legitimate authorities." (p. 137). The article argues
that because individuals are so dependant on the system which sustains them, that they are taught
to be obedient to authority figures. Because an individual is dependent on these systems, they are
often helpless to resist and look for ways to justify differences in power (p. 128). What this
means is that when faced with authority, we have a tendency to ascribe more positive traits
towards those persons and will yield to them at a greater extent than to someone of equal/ lesser
power. BDSM is about power, it is about authority and at its core is a (perceived) power
imbalance between two groups. The most famous examples of BDSM play are the maid and her
employer, the prisoner and their interrogator, or the criminal and their arresting officer. There is a
reason why BDSM emphasizes these power dynamics; it is very effective. Even knowing that a
scene where a submissive is taken prisoner is constructed, the symbols the dominant uses within
it can have a striking psychological effect because they draw on society's obedience to authority.
The dominant carrying a whip or wearing a uniform makes the scene feel much more real,
because in introducing traditional symbols of authority, you have introduced an authoritative
element. Toorn et al. (2010) found even the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure increases
a feeling of dependence upon them. (p. 135). When a session begins, the dominant and
submissive are still the same people as before they began, but there is a shift in perception which
submissives report. It is different to meet the Dominant when they are in street clothing, and then
to meet them a half hour later when they are dressed as a school's headmistress. The

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

psychological effect on the submissive happens quite rapidly; as one professional Dominatrix
puts it, "When you affect the body [via whips, chains, uniforms and other symbols of authority],
you affect the mind." (Brame, Brame & Jacobs, 1993, p. 88). From personal experience, when
first meeting a dominant after she dressed in the clothing of a wealthy Victorian lady, and then
addressed the submissive as a servant, there was an intense psychological response. There was
suddenly a nervousness to please her, do right by her and maintain favour which did not exist
before that moment. All of this occurred because the dominant was now presenting as a figure
with authority, and the submissive was taking the role of someone without any. Toon et al's.
(2010) findings support this. When a person is faced with authority, they are more likely to feel
dependant on that figure and abide by their decisions. BDSM uses that aspect of social
psychology as a way to promote the lopsided power dynamic which BDSM scenes are so
dependant on. Had the dominant met the submissive without those symbols, there would not
have been such an intense effect and the dominant would not have been able to exert as much
influence over the submissive. BDSM uses and plays with the concept of authority and reflects
what social psychologists have come to understand about it.
Related to this is role-playing and the power of the situation, which are both at play in our
society, and BDSM. The Stanford prison experiment is most likely the most famous example of
role-playing and it shows how much the role a person takes influences their attitudes. Uniforms
and symbols of authority were introduced, "... police agreed to "arrest" the prisoners and book
them, and once at the prison, they were given identity numbers, stripped naked, and deloused.
The prisoners wore large smocks with no underclothes..." (Zimbardo, 2007, p. 53). Zimbardo
recounts that initially "nothing much happened as the students awkwardly tried out their assigned
roles in their new uniforms." (p. 53). Similarly to how at first there was nervousness for a

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

submissive to outright reply "Yes, Mistress" as she adopted her new role. However Zimbardo
points out that early in the second day, following a rebellion by the prisoners, the guards found
themselves needing to assert who was in charge of the situation (p. 53). Everyone involved was a
student, there was no major power difference between them, however the students playing guards
felt a need to assert their authority simply because they were playing guards. Zimbardo states
that, "The situation won; humanity lost." (p. 55). Zimbardo also stated that the system became
self-perpetuating, in that parents who saw their prisoner son in such conditions did not fight to
withdraw him because they did not want to challenge the authority the role-playing had
seemingly vested in his captors (p. 55). Within BDSM play, it is very easy to lose one's self in the
scene and that is part of the appeal (along with part of its danger, which is discussed below). The
response of "Yes, Mistress" steadily came easier and the psychological effect of being a maid to a
wealthy woman became stronger as the role-playing progressed. Aided by symbols such as the
whip, collar and uniform, there was a very real sense of helplessness instilled in the mind of the
submissive when in reality the dominant had no real power over her. There was also a restriction
on what the submissive felt she could do and how she could speak because she did not wish to
step outside of the bounds of her role. In general her speech became more brief and yielding, and
this was not only because she had been told to do so, but because to challenge the dominant was
something a maid is not supposed to do. Happening regardless of the fact that the submissive
was not actually a maid and that the dominant was not actually a wealthy noblewoman. The
power of roles and role-playing is at work within BDSM, and the Stanford prison experiment
shows how the roles we take do influence our attitudes and behaviour (to the point where the
experiment came to resemble a BDSM scene itself).

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Zimbardo's (2007) article closes by discussing the Stanford prison experiment's modern
day relevance, and in doing so discusses a danger which BDSM practitioners are well aware of; a
condition known within the BDSM community as 'top's syndrome'. Knowing how susceptible
people are to the situation and the roles which we take on, Zimbardo examined how a role
became justification for physical and emotional abuses. How easy it becomes to abuse and
believe that abuse is "good for" someone who occupies a position which you are told is lower
than yours (p. 55). Top's syndrome is exactly this, when the dominant party within a BDSM
scene or relationship comes to believe that the submissive truly is unworthy or dehumanized, and
then acts without regard for their well being. This is a problem within the community and often
times dominants will use their position as such to justify abusing another saying "They asked for
it." (Brame, Brame & Jacobs, 1993, p. 51). Zimbardo stressed the need for people involved in the
military and prison system to be aware of the abuses which can stem from powerful roles, and
the BDSM community is aware of this need. While there is more attention being given to the
power of the situation and the potential for abuse, there are no proven ways to ensure that these
abuses cease.
It should be noted that BDSM is also aware of the consequences of a person's relationship
with authority and that there can be very negative affects on the psychology of both dominant
and submissive following play. For the dominant there are two reactions to a session which all
involved must be aware of. The first is 'top drop', a term referring that, "Hitting another person,
or otherwise "torturing" them, no matter how consensually it was done or how much the other
person enjoyed it, is taboo." (1996, Wiseman, p. 65). This causes feelings of depression and guilt
over what the dominant has done. For the submissive there is 'sub drop', where the submissive is
often faced with cognitive dissonance over what they have experienced and done. As Zimbardo's

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

10

article on the Stanford prison experiment shows us, people can have a very negative reaction
when they are faced with the fact that they have done something which is inconsistent with their
sense of self. "I too had been transformed by my role in that situation to become a person that
under any other circumstances I detest an uncaring, authoritarian boss man." (Zimbardo, 2007,
p. 54). Not alone in this, many of the participants (guards and prisoners) suffered mental
breakdowns and lasting signs of mental trauma due to knowing that they carried out these roles
to such an extreme, when they before believed themselves incapable of. The parallel with BDSM
is that after a scene there is often a period of depression (even after a positive experience) where
the participants struggle with what has transpired. For submissives, it is often that they consented
to being degraded, bound, tortured which (similar to what dominants do) is taboo, and it can be
difficult to understand that it is not necessary a reflection of their self worth. The submissive can
be independent and worthy within society, and still hold the desire to submit to another; and this
is something that most submissive deal with at one point in their lives while practising BDSM.
Both dominant and submissive are affected by self-discrepancy, a theory that their notion of self
is challenged when it is not compatible with who they believe they ought to be. "The ought self
is the representation of who a person feels he or she should become, " (Phillips & Silvia, 2005,
p. 704). In this case the self is someone who has dominant or submissive desires, but believes
they ought not to have them due to the norm of society which barely acknowledges BDSM or
classifies those who partake in it as 'perverts'. In order to alleviate the tension which exists,
people experienced with BDSM advocate that both parties meet in a 'vanilla' (non-BDSM)
context to discuss their session and generally 'check-in' with one another. Being able to talk to
one's partner after a scene in a setting where the session's roles are non-existent allows for a
couple things. First it allows for an integration of the self, in that the (submissive for example) is

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

11

able to realize that their desires and actions are not necessarily harmful, nor are they expected to
not have these desires. The other party also becomes an example that they are not alone in having
these desires, and thus influence the person struggling to accept theirs. There is less discrepancy
between the 'self' and the 'ought' as the submissive (for example) realizes that they are not
expected to be someone who is independent and dominant all the time. The second reason for the
post-session consult is that it breaks the roles people held within the scene, which allows people
to relate to one another as equals again instead of as dominant/ submissive. This is for the same
reasons debriefing is done by social psychologists. The consultation aims to resolve any
lingering negative feelings and ensures that the roles which existed throughout the scene are
clearly broken from. BDSM practice has been greatly influenced by social psychologist's notion
of the self, along with self-discrepancy theory. It acknowledges that there is a need to be aware
of the lasting consequences of unbalanced power dynamics and the need for proper debriefing.
BDSM is in many ways a parody and a microcosm of society and the dynamics which
exist between people. In borrowing the symbols, interactions and dynamics from society as a
whole, it allows people to construct their own reality. However because BDSM reflects so much
on how we interact within society, it is subject to the same principals which are at work in the
'vanilla' world. People who submit within BDSM often report that the presence of an authority
figure has paradoxically a binding and liberating aspect and that there is a very strong desire to
submit to the will of and offload responsibility onto that authority. This paradox facilitates
obedience within a BDSM scene and reflects how many people under authority will often act in a
way they could not bring themselves to normally. Additionally, the longer a scene continues and
the longer a submissive follows orders has shown to strengthen obedience to the dominant.
BDSM reflects how our attitudes can be shaped when faced with symbols and positions of

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

12

authority. A large part of BDSM play is the dominant positioning themselves as an authority and
how there is a very real change in the submissive's perception and attitude towards them. Outside
of BDSM contexts, studies have shown that when perceiving an authority as legitimate a person
is more likely to feel dependent on them, and feel satisfied with the decisions which they make.
Studies have shown how the power of the situation has a large impact on attitudes and behaviour,
and BDSM has shown this as well. People partaking in BDSM easily assume the roles they're
playing, and like the Stanford prison experiment showed, there is a serious potential for abuse
based on nothing but an artificial power dynamic. Finally, BDSM can impact one's sense of self
when their concept of the self conflicts with what they 'ought' to be; this is a very common
occurrence among people who engage in BDSM, as well as with people who engage in other
activities. Like social psychologists, BDSM practitioners know the need to recognize all of these
concepts and many work and apply what they learn in hopes of better understanding how we
interact within society. While it is largely taboo within society, BDSM is a lifestyle to millions of
people and there is more to it than whips and chains. BDSM interactions reflect society's
interactions and in doing so display social psychologist's theories about the self, authority,
obedience, attitudes and more.

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

13

References
Jacobs, J., Brame, W. D., & Brame, G. G. (1993). Different loving: The world of sexual
dominance & submission. New York: Villard.
Navarick, D. J. (2009). Reviving the milgram obedience paradigm in the era of informed
consent. The Psychological Record, 59, 155-170.
Participants repeatedly chose between 25 s of cartoon video followed by 5 s of time-out and 5 s
of cartoon video followed by 25 s of time-out. In the first 15 min, participants chose the former
schedule on 80% of trials. In the second 15 min, they were instructed to choose only the latter.
When informed that leaving would not be a problem for the researcher because enough data were
already collected, approximately 20% quit. When participants were additionally instructed that
most participants withdrew, approximately 50% of them quit, a result supporting Milgrams
(1965a) hypothesis that disobedience increases when it appears to be normative. As in Milgrams
experiments, participants were more likely to withdraw on early trials than on later trials.
Operant procedures involving instructions to choose a mildly aversive schedule offer an
alternative to simulations as a way of investigating the conflicts and escape processes
characteristic of the Milgram obedience paradigm.
Phillips, A. G., & Silvia, P. J. (2005). Self-awareness and the emotional consequences of selfdiscrepancies. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 31(5), 703-713.
Several self theories explore the effects of discrepant self-beliefs on motivation and emotion.
This research intersected two self theories: self-discrepancy theory and objective self-awareness
theory. Self-discrepancy theory predicts that ideal and ought discrepancies cause different
negative emotions; objective self-awareness theory predicts that high self-awareness will
strengthen the relationship between self-discrepancies and emotions. People (N = 112)
completed measures of self-discrepancies and emotions (dejection, agitation, positive affect, and
negative affect). Selffocused attention was manipulated with a large mirror. When self-awareness
was low, self-discrepancies had weak, nonsignificant relations to emotion. When self-awareness
was high, however, self-discrepancies strongly predicted emotional experience. These effects
were generalideal and ought discrepancies affected emotions because of their substantial
shared variance, not their unique variance. Implications for
Toorn, J. v. d., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2010). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system
justification, and the percieved legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 47, 127-138.
Legitimacy is a source of power for authorities because it promotes voluntary deference on the
part of followers. From a system justification perspective, there is also reason to believe that
power is a source of perceived legitimacy. We report five studies demonstrating that in addition
to procedural fairness and outcome favorability, outcome dependence is an independent
contributor to perceived legitimacy. In two cross-sectional field studies and one panel study, we
hypothesized and found that dependence on an authority figure is positively associated with
appraisals of legitimacy, measured in terms of trust and confidence in, empowerment of, and
deference to authority. These effects were demonstrated in educational, political, and legal
settings. Two additional experiments provided direct causal evidence for the hypothesized effect
on both perceived legitimacy and voluntary deference (i.e., acquiescence to additional requests).
We also found that participants assigned to a high (vs. low) dependence condition judged their

BDSM'S RELATION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

14

outcomes to be more favorable, despite the fact that the outcomes were identical in the two
conditions; this effect was mediated by perceived legitimacy. Taken as a whole, these findings
suggest that perceived legitimacy is enhanced not only when authorities exercise fair procedures
and deliver favorable outcomes, but also when subordinates are dependent on them. Implications
for society and the study of legitimacy and social power are discussed.
Wiseman, J. (1996). SM101: A realistic introduction (Second ed.). San Francisco: Greenery
Press.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the stanford prison experiment: A lesson in the power of the
situation. Chronicle of Higher Education, , 53.
When he conducted the Stanford prison experiment, Philip G. Zimbardo wanted to know who
would win--good people or an evil situation--when they were brought into direct confrontation.
The situation won; humanity lost. Out the window went the moral upbringings of the young men
involved in the experiment, as well as their middle-class civility. Power ruled, and unrestrained
power became an aphrodisiac. Power without surveillance by higher authorities was a poisoned
chalice that transformed character in unpredictable directions. In this article, Zimbardo argues
that most people tend to be fascinated with evil not because of its consequences but because evil
is a demonstration of power and domination over others. The Stanford prison experiment is but
one of a host of studies in psychology that reveal the extent to which human behavior can be
transformed from its usual set point to deviate in unimaginable ways, even to readily accepting a
dehumanized conception of others, as "animals," and to accepting spurious rationales for why
pain will be good for them. Implications of this research to the criminal justice system are
discussed.

You might also like