LGBTQIA + and Heterosexual BDSM Practitioners: Discrimination, Stigma, Tabooness, Support, and Community Involvement

Introduction The bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism (BDSM) community has a history of stigmatization; however, potential positive factors that may help mitigate the impact of this stigmatization have not been fully explored. Noting the large overlap between BDSM and the LGBTQ...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sexuality research & social policy 2022-12, Vol.19 (4), p.1747-1762
Hauptverfasser: Boyd-Rogers, Caroline C., Maddox, Geoffrey B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism (BDSM) community has a history of stigmatization; however, potential positive factors that may help mitigate the impact of this stigmatization have not been fully explored. Noting the large overlap between BDSM and the LGBTQIA + communities, the current work identifies and compares the role of BDSM for heterosexual and LGBTQIA + community members. Method A survey was administered on http://fetlife.com to a sample of 289 BDSM practitioners in 2019. One hundred eighty-eight identified as LGBTQIA + and 101 identified as heterosexual, cisgender, and allosexual. Items assessed various factors such as discrimination, stigma, tabooness, outness, support, and community involvement. Results LGBTQIA + BDSM practitioners reported more severe experiences with discrimination than those endorsing a heterosexual identity. BDSM-related factors (e.g., stigma from society, perceived tabooness) did not significantly differ across groups. Consistent with prior literature, heterosexual practitioners reported more general social support from family and vanilla friends than LGBTQIA + practitioners did, but interestingly, LGBTQIA + practitioners reported more community involvement and connectedness than heterosexual practitioners. Conclusions LGBTQIA + and heterosexual practitioners reported similar levels of negative consequences from their BDSM identity. Nonetheless, in the relative absence of family and peer support, the BDSM community may provide a critical source of support and connectedness for LGBTQIA + practitioners. Policy Implications Membership in a historically “taboo” community can create unique psychosocial stressors and serve as a critical source of support for many who lack support from other sources. Thus, BDSM practitioners and BDSM-identified people should be considered part of an unrecognized sexual minority by healthcare providers.
ISSN:1868-9884
1553-6610
DOI:10.1007/s13178-022-00759-y