Standards for deeming normality or abnormality are pretty cultural and subjective, in my experience. It seems we're very gradually trying to pull off a progressively more open minded balance between choice and safety.

At my institution, I've noticed a few public notices go up for BDSM communities to start talking about setting up a forum for discussing these issues anonymously. Interestingly, the postings make a point of highlighting the concern that, whatever anyone chooses to do privately, this group would like to promote communication under the expectation of safety to all those participating.

Basically, the general social imperatives towards opening up choice and freedom to marginalized "atypical" groups are what I think will be what allows BDSM to become more legitimized and more "normal." The key theme is to have this choice and this freedom while also ensuring safety. This concern for safety is a bit more warranted, I think, in the case of BDSM than of homosexuality, but I'm sure that, in time, with enough discussion, culture will arrive some definition of what constitutes safe BDSM.

Why would one even discuss the safety of BDSM if both parties havw consented to it? A D/S relationship is a trust relationship and therefore, people are expected to know what they are doing.

"Expectation to know what they are doing," "consent," and "trust" are concepts as culturally pregnant and open to interpretation as "the reasonable person." Whatever set of relationships is lucky enough to count as "normal" in the current mainstream has itself to work through issues of safety, consent, and equity. Under those terms of mutual consent and trust, BDSM might be perfectly acceptable. However, if BDSM is not going to count as what the mainstream might confuse with abuse, it has some accounting to do at least for the benefit of mainstream appreciation. If BDSM is not mainstream now, and if it should be, then it comes down to a lack of communication, at least with the mainstream. The mainstream needs education, not recrimination for not understanding the premises of a subculture.

Please note that I am only relaying an observation. Exactly why people at my institution thought to emphasize safety in a conversation about BDSM is not my expertise. I thought it was interesting, especially insofar as I'm interested in the relaxation of arbitrary cultural distinctions and the normalization of heretofore marginalized people who might suffer from discrimination without having committed any crime against any social contract. As someone who might be so pedestrian as to count among the mainstream, I noted that, yes, safety seems like a good priority to keep in mind. When it comes time to vote on BDSM rights or to respond to BDSM advocacy, I will be all ears when it comes to enlightening everyone about the set of expectations of consent and trust taken by all those participating.

Wow. There are a lot of questions here and I want to respond to each but I am not sure I have the time. I do want to first address Stephanie’s statement regarding safety essentially being a non-issue in a consenting relationship. This could not possibly be further from accurate. First of all, how is one supposed to “know what they are doing” if the subject of safety has not been explicitly discussed? One might trust one’s partner “with their life” but when it comes to activities like suspension bondage, electro-sex, breath play, fire play, and so on that “with their life” becomes literal and trusting a person emotionally, physically, and intimately does not guarantee proper safety techniques or knowledge. Even a little fun with silk scarves around the bedpost should require safety shears on the nightstand because things happen. This is not a matter of trial and error. People can really get hurt – and I hate to say, killed. Safety lectures and demonstrations are probably the number one activity of any BDSM community and one of the most frequent topics at conventions. There are two mottos in BDSM: 1) Safe, Sane, and Consensual (SCC) 2) Risk Aware Consensual Kink (RACK). No amount of discussion or safety demos is ever going to completely remove the risk as the risk is a fundamental element of the practice but education helps to reduce and make one aware of the risks. Just like your mother teaching you to look both ways before crossing the street has, presumably, kept you safe thus far but it does not make you impervious to buses and neither does trusting the traffic laws that say a bus should stop when the light is red. That said, legal sanctions against BDSM on the basis of personal and safety are lacking any ground to stand on. There are multiple studies demonstrating that BDSM is not responsible for more, or even as many, ER visits than vanilla sex or active sports.

To Damian – “the mainstream” is a fickle mistress. Fifty Shades of Grey out sold Harry Potter and yet sadomasochism is still listed as a psychopathology in both the DSM-5 and ICD-10. Iconic images of BDSM are present in prime time sitcoms, commercials, music videos, movies (not just the ones rated ‘R’), and video games but actual, non-fictional, discussion of the topic is either treated like an installment of “freak of the week” or results in censorship from a number of directions. On a side note – there is no reason for a vote on BDSM. The idea that people can control the sexual expression of others by majority rule is reprehensible and it is time for advocacy so perk up.

To the original question: People who enjoy BDSM do not perceive pain in a “completely different way.” The most sexually masochistic individuals still don’t enjoy getting a root canal. I am not sure exactly what UK law you are referring to but in R v. Brown (the Spanner Trial) the issue was that consent could not be used as a defense because BDSM was not an activity “in the public interest” such as sports, or as in a previous case boxing. Both R v. Brown and Pay v. UK were denied appeal on the basis of privacy rights because the investigations were considered a matter of “public safety.” The legal and pathological treatment of BDSM practitioners is historically similar to that of homosexuals. Some go as far as to argue BDSM is a sexual orientation rather than a preference. As far as there being some revelation about what is sexually normal versus abnormal it comes down to Kinsey’s conclusion that if it is possible it is normal. Any judgment of human sexuality beyond that is morality based. Lastly, in regard to “others” who are dangerous to “us,” that really hits on the us v. them fear-based mentality from which most moralistic law comes. BDSM practitioners, contrary to what CSI and Criminal Minds might have you believe (US television shows if you are unfamiliar), are no more likely to be serial killers than people who have sex are to be rapists.

That is all I have time for right now. Thank you so much for opening this as a category of discussion on Research Gate. I hope this is not the last discussion of this topic! If you are interested I can provide you with more research citations than you could possibly care to read, just not at the moment.

Cheers.

Thanks for your thoughts, Alexzandria. I'm sorry if I chose my words poorly. As you note, this issue is rife with questions. I actually don't believe that "the mainstream" is anything but fickle or unreliable, and I believe that many personal issues don't need votes, but advocacy for change in these classifications can reach legislators, the judges, or referendum. I don't see the first two as the more open-minded of the three. And whether or not you like a vote, there's always a vote (whether officially regulated or not) to get these classifications changed by some committee or some group somewhere. DSM and ICD change their standards by "experts" of all stripes fighting it out over their questions and (we hope) their new research, and it comes down to agreeing by committee. I do not subscribe to BDSM, but as a psychologist, I'm very sympathetic to the deep problems with classification and consequent stigma. As a scholar and as a human being, I'm happy to be more accepting. The advocacy is in order, as you note, and as someone for whom BDSM is not specific to my own personal cultural affiliations, I found myself nodding approvingly when I saw the flyer I mentioned welcoming a discussion about safety. So, I appreciate your remarks on this line.

The original question does pose the question of normality and who defines it. The unfair and cruel truth is that the majority, the prejudicial, stereotype-happy, lazy information-foraging mainstream does get to author the definitions of normality. It's up to change, and that's the only reason I'm not entirely depressed about the stupid and irrational set of concerns, standards, and morals that are presumed to hold for everyone (or everyone "normal"). I didn't mean at all to suggest that the mainstream is not a fickle mistress, but it's every current subculture's choice right now to either sit tight and stay a subculture or to work their way to the greater acceptance it may well deserve. I don't like it, but it applies equally well to all subcultures. Advocacy is to inform the mainstream and ultimately strengthen the diversity that is lurking below the illusory homogeneity. It would be nice if advocacy were only to free those who feel oppressed by social norms, but it's not, precisely because those hiding away as if they belong in the boring, allegedly "normal" majority want assurances that they won't get dropped from the social contract that they think relies on *acting* "normal."

To Alexzandria and Damian: Thank you so much for your answers!

To Alexzandria: I was unaware of the two mottos of BDSM. It is interesting to see that such practices have actually been categorised.

Whenever you find time, I would really appreciate it if you could actually forward me further articles on the topic. It is a subject I was initially introduced to through my surroundings and their influence was enough to add the foundations of a new perspective on my mind in regards to judging the efficiency of law. I am currently researching how courts treat BDSM whilst investigating every aspect of it (medical, psychoanalytic, moral etc).

To Damian: Regarding your view on normality and advocacy, I would suggest that there are two options; either the judges have created the design of the person they would like to deal with and therefore the 'reasonable person' in law is nothing but a made-up figure, unlike ordinary people or they have no rigid frame as to the person they would label as reasonable and therefore their openness to various interpretations does eventually mess things up.

Damian - excuse me if I seemed to be on a soapbox. I am in the midst of a dissertation on a topic related to BDSM and I get a little passionate about the debate sometimes. I didn't think you literally meant "vote" but you make a very good point about how decisions are made regarding the DSM and ICD. This was recently a huge debate in the US over changes to the DSM5 - ultimately decided by committee.

I personally think it is crazy that any sexual "subculture" needs to fight for acceptance. Why are someone's sexual preferences anyone's business? In the case of BDSM it is very hard to be "out" due to legal issues and other discrimination - child custody especially.

Stephanie - here are some publications that are specific to UK & US law:

Chatterjee, B. B. (2012). Pay v UK, the probation service and consensual BDSM sexual citizenship. Sexualities, 15(5-6), 739–757. doi:10.1177/1363460712446279

Commonwealth v. Appleby. 380 Mass. 296 (1980) Retrieved from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/380/380mass296.html

Klein, M., & Moser, C. (2006). S/M (sadomasochistic) interests as an issue in a child custody proceeding. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2/3), 233–242. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_11

New York Times. (2001, November 2). All charges dismissed by judge in Columbia sex torture case. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/02/technology/02CYBE.html?pagewanted=2

People v. Jovanovic. 263 A.D.2d 182, 700 N.Y.S.2d 156. Retrieved from https://ncsfreedom.org/images/stories/pdfs/Consent%20Counts/Legal%20Research/Jovanovic%20No%20Headnotes.pdf

People v. Samuels. 250 Cal.App.2d 501 (1967) Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1967751250CalApp2d501_1687.xml/PEOPLE%20v.%20SAMUELS

Ridinger, R. B. (2006). Negotiating limits: the legal status of S/M in the United States. Journal Of Homosexuality, 50(2-3), 189–216. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_09

More publications - positive and negative:

Attwood, F., & Walters, C. (2013). Fifty Shades and the law: Regulating sex and sex media in the UK. Sexualities, 16(8), 974–979. doi:10.1177/1363460713508880

Barker, M. (2013). Consent is a grey area? A comparison of understandings of consent in Fifty Shades of Grey and on the BDSM blogosphere. Sexualities, 16(8), 896–914. doi:10.1177/1363460713508881

Connolly, P. H. (2006). Psychological functioning of bondage/domination/sado-masochisrn (BDSM) practitioners. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(1), 79–120. doi:10.1300/J056v18n01_05

Cross, P. A., & Matheson, K. (2006). Understanding sadomasochism: An empirical examination of four perspectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2/3), 133–166. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_07

Dancer, P. L., Kleinplatz, P. J., & Moser, C. (2006). 24/7 SM slavery. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2/3), 81–101. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_05

Deckha, M. (2011). Pain as culture: A postcolonial feminist approach to S/M and women’s agency. Sexualities, 14(2), 129–150. doi:10.1177/1363460711399032

Doren, D., & Elwood, R. (2009). The diagnostic reliability of sexual sadism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(3), 251-261. doi:10.1177/1079063209342072

Easton, D. & Hardy, J. W. (2004). Radical ecstasy. Oakland, CA: Greenery Press

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays to the theory of sex [PDF]. Retrieved from http://www.pdfbooksworld.com/pdf/Three-Contributions-to-the-Theory-of-Sex.pdf

Green, R. (2001). (Serious) sadomasochism: A protected right of privacy? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), 543–550.

Harrington, L. (2009). Sacred kink: The eightfold paths of BDSM and beyond. Lynnwood, WA: Mystic Productions.

Harrington, L. (Ed.). (2010). Spirit of desire: Personal explorations of sacred kink. Lynnwood, WA: Mystic Productions.

Hawthorne, S. (2005). Ancient hatred and its contemporary manifestation: The torture of lesbians. Journal of Hate Studies, 4(1), 33–58.

Hopkins, P. D. (1994). Rethinking sadomasochism: Feminism, interpretation and simulation. Hypatia, 9(1), 116–141.

Jozifkova E. (2013). Consensual sadomasochistic sex (BDSM): The roots, the risks, and the distinctions between BDSM and violence. Current Psychiatry Report, 15(9), 392. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0392-1

Kaldera, R. (2006). Dark moon rising: Pagan BDSM and the ordeal path. Hubbardston, MA: Asphodel Press.

Kleinplatz, P. J., & Ménard, A. D. (2007). Building blocks toward optimal sexuality: constructing a conceptual model. Family Journal, 15(1), 72–78. doi:10.1177/1066480706294126

Krafft-Ebing, R. (1894) Psychopathia sexualis. (C. G. Chaddock, Trans.) Retrieved from http://selfdefinition.org/possession/Kraft-Ebbing-Psychopathia-Sexualis.pdf

Krueger, R. B. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual sadism. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 39(2), 325–345. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9586-3

Lawrence, A. A., & Love-Crowell, J. (2008). Psychotherapists’ experience with clients who engage in consensual sadomasochism: A qualitative study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 34(1), 67–85. doi:10.1080/00926230701620936

Lindemann, D. (2011). BDSM as therapy? Sexualities, 14(2), 151–172. doi:10.1177/1363460711399038

McLawsen, J., Jackson, R., Vannoy, S., Gagliardi, G., & Scalora, M. (2008). Professional perspectives on sexual sadism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 20(3), 272–304. doi:10.1177/1079063208320250

Moser, C., & Kleinplatz, P. (2005). DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: An argument for removal. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 17(3/4), 91–109. doi:10.1300/J056v17n03_05

Newmahr, S. (2011). Chaos, order, and collaboration: Toward a feminist conceptualization of edgework. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(6), 682.

Nichols, M. (2006). Psychotherapeutic issues with “kinky” clients: clinical problems, yours and theirs. Journal Of Homosexuality, 50(2-3), 281–300. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_14

Nitschke, J., Mokros, A., Osterheider, M., & Marshall, W., L. (2013). Sexual sadism: current diagnostic vagueness and the benefit of behavioral definitions. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 57(12), 1441–1453. doi:10.1177/0306624X12465923

Nordling, N., Sandnabba, N. K., & Santtila, P. (2000). The prevalence and effects of self-reported childhood sexual abuse among sadomasochistically oriented males and females. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 9(1), 53–63. doi:10.1300/J070v09n01_04

Pearson, J. (2005). Inappropriate sexuality? Sex magic, S/M and Wicca (or “Whipping Harry Potter”s Arse!’). Theology & Sexuality: The Journal of the Institute for the Study of Christianity & Sexuality, 11(2), 31–42.

Pitagora, D. (2013). Consent vs. coercion: BDSM interactions highlight a fine but immutable line. New School Psychology Bulletin, 10(1), 27–36.

Powls, J., & Davies, J. (2012). A descriptive review of research relating to sadomasochism: considerations for clinical practice. Deviant Behavior, 33(3), 223. doi:10.1080/01639625.2011.573391

Reiersøl, O & Skeid, S. (2006). The ICD diagnoses of fetishism and sadomasochism. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2-3), 243-262. doi10.1300/J082v50n02_12

Reynolds, D. (2007). Disability and BDSM: Bob Flanagan and the case for sexual rights. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 4(1), 40–52. doi:10.1525/srsp.2007.4.1.40

Richters, J., de Visser, R. O., Rissel, C. E., Grulich, A. E., & Smith, A. M. (2008). Demographic and psychosocial features of participants in bondage and discipline, “sadomasochism” or dominance and submission (BDSM): Data from a National Survey. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5(7), 1660–1668. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00795.x

Roma, P., Pazzelli, F., Pompili, M., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S. (2013). Shibari: Double hanging during consensual sexual asphyxia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(5), 895–900. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0035-3

Sagarin, B. J., Cutler, B., Cutler, N., Lawler-Sagarin, K. A., & Matuszewich, L. (2009). Hormonal changes and couple bonding in consensual sadomasochistic activity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(2), 186–200. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9374-5

Southern, S. (2002). The tie that binds: sadomasochism in female addicted trauma survivors. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 9(4), 209–229. doi:10.1080/10720160216050

Weinberg, T. S. (2006). Sadomasochism and the social sciences: A review of the sociological and social psychological literature. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2/3), 17–40. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_02

Weiss, M. D. (2006). Mainstreaming kink: The politics of BDSM representation in U.S. popular media. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2/3), 103–132. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_06

Wismeijer, A. A., & van Assen, M. A. (2013). Psychological characteristics of BDSM practitioners. The Journal Of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 1943–1952. doi:10.1111/jsm.12192

Wright, S. (2010). Depathologizing consensual sexual sadism, sexual masochism, transvestic fetishism, and fetishism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1229–1230. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9651-y

Zussman, M. & Pierce, A. (1998). Shifts in consciousness in consensual S/M, bondage and fetish play. Anthropology of Consciousness 9(4), 15-38. doi: 10.1525/ac.1998.9.4.15

Apologies for the late reply. Thank you very much for your assistance :)

Alexzandria,  Thank you so much for the list of recent publications.  I am familiar with many but there are many others more recent than my last searches.  Good luck on your dissertation.  I hope you will provide a link when you are done.  I would love to read it.

FYI, there is a Mendeley group under the auspices of CARAS which lists many references.  I imagine you have seen them all but just in case I thought I would share it with you.  

http://www.mendeley.com/groups/2226231/caras-research/

Regardless of the particulars, yes, the notion of the reasonable person is both inefficient and not particularly credible. However, that does not mean that all other methods are even less efficient and less credible.

In the US, the most glaring issue is race (with a good chance that is also a major issue in the UK). We've been working on that one for a very long time, and no satisfactory alternatives to the present methods has emerged as acceptable.

As much as you may be interested in the BDSM community, there are plenty of groups ahead in the queue for reflection upon the relationship between the legal fiction of the "reasonable person" and its impact on the characteristics of the persons being judged.