an exploration of 24/7: please, authors, may i have some more?

And the reviewing madness continues.

Next up in Peggy Kleinplatz and Charles Moser’s Sadomasochism: Powerful Pleasures is a study by Peter L. Dancer and the two book editors themselves, entitled simply “24/7 SM Slavery.”

The most amazing thing about this article is not that it’s well-written, lucid and un-pathologizing, but that the study was carried out at all. I mean, 24/7 relationships are the “worst of the worst” in the public’s eye – apart from maybe extreme body modification and gratuitous physical abuse. They’re even suspect within the SM world in many cases; lots of kinksters can handle the idea of dominance and submission within a scene, or even between two individuals on some sort of ongoing basis, but 24/7 is the dark horse of the bunch: tantalizing to some, desperately dreamed of by others, scary to more, and simply wrong in the view of many.

So reading the work of three PhDs who got together and carried out an in-depth study of 146 self-identified 24/7 slaves – and please note the emphasis on hearing the voices of the people whom, if you were concerned about victimhood, would be classically understood as being in the “victim” position – and seeing that they analyzed the data all nice and calm-like, rather than trying to paint these people into a picture of spousal abuse, self-delusion or simple stark raving madness… well, I’m waaay impressed. Of course I’m unsurprised at the clear-headed nature of the work, given who the authors are, but still impressed that they actually did it, and that it’s now out there for public consumption. Anyone who ever wondered about the health of 24/7 relationships, well, now you’ve got some numbers to work with.

The respondents were 53% female and 47% male; they ranged in age from 18 to 72. Wow. The summary provides the study’s basic findings:

“We explored the depth of their relationships, how well they approximated “slavery,” and how their relationships were structured to maintain distinct roles. Data showed that in long-term SM slave relationships, a power differential exists which extends beyond time-limited SM or sexual interactions. Owners and slaves often use common, daily life experiences or situations, such as the completion of household chores, money management, and morning or evening routines, to distinguish and maintain their respective roles. In addition, contrary to the perception of total submission, results revealed that slaves exercise free will when it is in their best interests to do so. These relationships were long-lasting and satisfying to the respondents.”

Herein lies both the beauty and the misunderstanding of SM slavery. “Slavery” in the classic sense is a horrendous thing with historical roots in various cultures all over the world. As a result, the terminology is always a hot-button topic among SMers, some insisting that it’s inappropriate to use the word “slave” for any kind of consensual relationship because it’s disrespectful to the heritage of those who have suffered the real thing, others insisting that they’ll describe their relationships with the terms that feel best to them and nobody’s got the right to take that away from them.

I don’t usually weigh in on the terminology question, personally; I may be a language geek but I recognize that loaded terms like this are always touchy, and there is rarely a single “right” answer. But politics aside, I don’t find the term “slavery” to be all that accurate when applied in an SM context, but then again, I think a lot of the terms we bandy around aren’t exactly right.

Take “TPE” for example – “Total Power Exchange.” I mean, what a load of hooey. The word “total” means everything, all, no exceptions. Does anyone ever give over all their power to someone else? And if they did, what would that make them but an automaton, a completely empty husk with no person inside at all? And who the hell wants to be that, or have a person like that in their world? Besides, outside of perhaps a handful of independently wealthy people with utterly empty schedules and absolutely massive appetites for controlling others (the latter two being practically mutually exclusive), who the heck could even accomplish such a thing? Nobody ever has total power over another. Extreme maybe, but let’s be serious here.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Of course 24/7 SM slaves exercise their free will. Otherwise they wouldn’t be 24/7 SM slaves, they’d be abused partners. And that’s not just a terminology distinction – the whole point of SM, the very nexus of what distinguishes it from assault and battery, is that it’s consensual. Okay, and we dress way better and are way more creative than your average street thug. But seriously. The study says,

“Although these relationships are reportedly without limit, the process of deciding to enter into the relationship is such, that the submissive partner rarely finds the dominant’s desires incompatible with his or her own.”

(Don’t ask me what that comma’s doing there, I’m just quoting verbatim.)

In other words, if you’re looking to have someone to be in control of certain aspects of your behaviour and your decisions, then it goes without saying that they may make decisions that you won’t like; and it is presumed, if you’re seeking out a 24/7 arrangement, that you desire their control more than you desire whatever it is that they’re forbidding you to do, or more than you desire to not do whatever it is they’re telling you you must do.

If the submissive doesn’t like the control and take pleasure in handing over that authority, regardless of the specifics of whether or not they enjoy the consequences of that hand-over, they wouldn’t be in a 24/7 relationship. Trust me – 24/7 partners don’t come along every day. Sometimes it takes years, decades, for people to find an appropriate match, and once you have, it takes work to sustain it. 

Much like people hire personal trainers to whip them into shape – the whole point is that they desire the motivation and push of another person’s will that will help them get to a state they wish to attain and cannot, or don’t want to, attain alone. They desire the flat belly and the discipline of training more than they desire to sleep in and eat cheeseburgers, so they hire someone to hold that authority even when they don’t like it and grumble about it. But it’s one helluva lot easier to find a decent personal trainer than to find the master or mistress of your dreams… or the submissive of your dreams for that matter. There are quite literally thousands of people out there clamouring for 24/7 relationships who clearly aren’t in them. Check any BDSM personals site – there’s really no shortage. Anyway, my point: yes, 24/7 is consensual. Next topic.

Let’s see… other interesting tidbits in the article… just little things that made me spin off on happy little brain tangents…

“The data revealed that the vast majority (99%) of all respondents had rules. These rules involved limitations or obligations applicable to the slave that are in place at all times and in all situations. Among respondents, 85% reported that they participate regularly in established rituals.”

Rules would seem to go hand-in-hand with the whole idea of slavery; rituals clearly don’t, even if they’re in place a large percentage of the time. Intriguing. I wonder what the non-ritual 15% do!   

“All the relationships were sexual.”

Fascinating, that one. I wonder how common a non-sexual 24/7 dynamic might be.

70 of the 146 respondents had engaged in 24/7 relationships previous to their current ones;

“The respondents indicated that they initiated their release in 69% of the instances, while termination was initiated by the owners in 24%. In the remaining 7% of cases, termination was mutual or no data were reported.”

The authors make the point that this clearly indicates the use of free will and the lack of force used on the part of the owners to oblige the slaves to stay. One more check mark in the “consensual” column.

“A large majority of respondents (88%) indicated that they were satisfied or completely satisfied with their current relationships. Additionally, almost 71% of the sample indicated the relationship was more satisfying or significantly more satisfying now than when it began.”

I wonder if the numbers would be the same for your average marriage, or even your average serious couple? How fascinating that satisfaction is so high among 24/7 slaves.

The authors also put forth four major characteristics of 24/7 relationships, as follows:

“(1) The relationship reinforces the slave mind-set. (2) The participants must often fulfill the slavery aspects of the relationship surreptitiously. (3) The relationship is structured to safeguard the slave. (4) The relationship contract parallels conventional relationship arrangements.”

In Laura Antoniou’s Marketplace series, a well-known fictional series depicting the lives of certain people within a worldwide consensual slave market, there is actually an idea mentioned at one point – a single line in a single book – suggesting that the entire Marketplace structure exists not to provide willing slaves for owners, but to provide owners and training as a service to would-be slaves. Certainly it is fictional, but there’s definitely something to the concept…

It’s also interesting that in a couple of instances, the authors put forth comparisons between a slave orientation and a queer one. Not because they resemble one another in principle, but because both are outside the norm of traditional ways of relating intimately to others, and as such society treats those people differently. For example:

“The second element involves the need to modify the overt representation of one’s slavery when in public as another means by which the slavery can be maintained 24/7, outside of the traditionally viewed scene or sexual encounter. Within the confines and structure of one’s home, the owner and slave roles can be embraced with relative ease. Most people, however, will have to interact with and join the outside world at some point. This is similar to the issues that homosexual-identified individuals report when having to be ‘in the closet.'”  

And later, in their suggestions for further research:

“Also, several respondents indicated that their slavery is simply who they are, whether they are in a slave relationship at the time or not. Further research should examine whether or not for some participants slavery or submission is akin to a distinct orientation and the extent to which such a belief affects the need for more firmly identified boundaries and parameters.”

There’s little to go on here, but it certainly echoes the discourse I’ve heard on international BDSM lists, at conferences and so forth. It feels to me like a whole other topic of discussion – but wouldn’t it make sense, given how most human beings engage in relationship patterns of one sort or another, that some people might have a strong inclination towards power-exchange-based relationships… strong enough that it feels like a sexual orientation does in the classic sense? In other words, too compelling (and hot) to be ignored?

Really, this whole study served to leave me feeling enormously intrigued. It is satisfying to see some preliminary results, especially since they’re concordant with what I’ve observed in the BDSM world and don’t feel like some weirdly biased outsiders’ perspective as many such studies do. But this feels like an appetizer, and I very much want the full meal!


7 thoughts on “an exploration of 24/7: please, authors, may i have some more?

  1. Any word on the sexual orientation of the pairings? I’d also be curious about the demographics in terms of gender and role in 24/7. Iiiiinteresting.

  2. “Although respondents self-identified as heterosexual (41%), bisexual (26%) or homosexual (33%), it is not clear whether this self-identification reflected “instrinsic” interest or actual behavior. There were two male respondents who self-identified as heterosexual, yet their questionnaires indicated that their owners were male and that their sexual contact was exclusively with men. Of the 66 male respondents, 51 were involved with another male and 15 with a female. Of the 80 female respondents, 74 were involved with a male and 6 were involved with another female.”

    Doesn’t say how the ages or other demographic info were distributed though. Except that 94% of respondents were white. Oh, and they do mention that one respondent was a MTF transsexual (I presume she was counted as female for statistical purposes but they don’t say specifically) and that there were no FTM transsexuals in the pool.

    Definitely interesting stuff.

  3. I’m immensely intrigued by this study and might even get the book especially for this. Despite the many people clamoring for 24/7, at least in theory, you’re absolutely right about how much it’s shooed off to the side in many kinky circles and spaces.

    I’d be really interested to know more about the data collection process, though, the context for the survey or interview, the exact questions, and any thoughts about how the status of the researchers might affect the answers. I mean, one of the things most difficult about kink and other identities that don’t fit within hegemony is that people in the community are often leery of offering negatives as fodder for outsiders to further marginalize us, ya know? I’m actually not suggesting that these stats aren’t accurate, because my contact with 24/7 players makes me think they likely are, but I guess I’m curious as to why 150 24/7 slaves would be willing to speak frankly with academics. Are the academics respected players in the kink community or somesuch?

    ~D

  4. Charles Moser is very well respected in the SM world – he’s the author of “Health Care Without Shame: A Handbook for the Sexually Diverse and Their Caregivers,” about how queers and kinksters can deal with the medical establishment, as well as “Bound to be Free: The SM Experience” and a few collaborations with Greenery Press authors (the publishers of most of the kink how-to books out there). He’s been researching in this field for 25 or 30 years now and, while I can’t speak for his personal participation in kink per se, another paper in the book indicates his attendance at play parties throughout that time. So I imagine he’s likely kinky – though I understand why he doesn’t say so outright.

    Peggy Kleinplatz is an Ottawa U-based researcher and she runs a private kink-positive sex-and-relationship therapy practice. (A later article in this book explains her take on what “regular” people can learn from the erotic and relational skills of SM practitioners so she’s clearly pretty well-versed and positive.) This is the first major publication I’ve seen on the topic with her name on it, but I’ve heard her name pop up in academic circles on the question of SM for years now. Same deal as to whether she’s personally kinky or not.

    I don’t know about Peter L. Dancer, never heard of him, but he does have his PhD from the IASHS, which is where Moser holds his academic position, and which is known for its very liberal stance on alternative sexualities – same place Carol Queen and Annie Sprinkle got their PhDs, for example. So I would imagine he’s got his own reputation, if perhaps in less international circles for the moment.

    As for their research methods:

    “The sample was recruited via Internet and participation was voluntary.” …

    “A survey instrument was developed for this study (…). The final survey contained 49 questions covering a wide range of topics (…). The study received necessary approvals by the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. Prior to implementation, the survey was reviewed by leaders of the SM community to ensure that the questions were unambiguous, non-offensive, and that the questionnaire was adequate in detail and comprehensiveness.” …

    “The survey was posted on the Internet at a commercial site specifically catering to survey research; this site allows anonymous survey submission. Requests to participate and general information about the project were posted on one SM web site, distributed to several SM community leaders so that they could solicit participants, and sent to a variety of SM organizations and online SM groups to solicit their members.”

    So… yeah, it’s pretty much gold, really. At least as far as we’re concerned – I’m sure all this same information would be used by anti-SM folks to discredit the whole thing, but in my books the only people who could hope to get real answers from 24/7 players are people who’ve established that they can be trusted with that information and trusted to interpret it without a negative or pathologizing bias.

  5. Oh my! Your reviews have intrigued me as well. Though I’m no academic, I do enjoy reading these studies, if only because they inspire quite a bit of introspective thought within my little bean. Apart from the odd article here and there, I haven’t read a book of collected studies since “Different Loving”, that I picked up a few years back.

    I’m especially interested in this article, as I am in a 24/7 S&M relationship. I didn’t realize that this sort of relationship was considered, among kinksters, controversial or suspect. Although I’ve always thought of myself as fortunate to be in this relationship, I’ve always thought of these 24/7 relationships as ‘the norm’.

    Food for thought food for thought om nom nom nom…

    (I do hope, that after inspiring folks to buy this book, these folks cut you a cheque…)

  6. Sounds like quite an interesting article. I have to admit that when I started exploring the world of BDSM/kink, I had misconceptions about 24/7. Over the years, I’ve read about people’s experiences and have gained a better understanding (though probably still incomplete). This article could certainly help many people get over the common misconceptions about 24/7.

  7. This has tempted me as well to locate this book/study. I’m in 24/7 and found much of what is written here to be true. Although I’m not active in the “kink community”, I have found that monogomous 24/7 M/s relationships are kept “outside” the mainstream of the D/s groups. I think it has more to do with the thrill seekers than those who share in the search for the deeper intimacy it provides.
    Just my two cents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s