Every society has taboos. Most of them have sexual taboos. Those societies that do not have sexual taboos have mouth taboos, either on eating or on talking. What the connection is between the beginning of the alimentary canal and the end of it, or between the tongue and the genitals, I will only leave for speculation.

There are two reasons, as far as I can tell [why S&M is taboo in our culture]. The first has to do with control. As a society, we are as frightened of control issues as we are of anger issues. They are related. To express anger seems like losing control. So it's taboo to look at those things that frighten us. Second, if you control people's sexuality, you control their lives. If you tell them what they may or may not do sexually, you have in a very real and a very deep way told them who they may be, who they may not be, what they may be, what they may not be. The organization of any society needs (or feels that it needs) to control its citizens.

As far as I can see there is no engagement between two mammals that does not include a power relationship, a jockeying to determine who is the alpha animal. In my observation, most relationships between two people do not include any awareness of this need to resolve the power dynamic. People attempt to determine their power relationships implicitly, not explicitly, and consequently human interactions are generally fraught with arguing and bickering to see who gets to control things. This complex process [may] result in a lot of manipulative behavior, [with] people who are physically or psychologically weaker trying to gain control from underneath, covertly, and people who are clearly stronger physically or psychologically feeling that they're being manipulated, but not quite knowing how, getting frustrated, and hitting their partners. I'm [speaking] hypothetically, but it's been my observation that that's part of what goes on in a lot of spousal abuse, partner abuse, battering relationships.

I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this, but I don't know of a battering situation, for instance, where [either] the batterer, the batteree or both have not come from situations where power was dealt with unconsciously. I have worked in situations where I had to deal with many people who had been battered, either as adults (spouses or partners) or children. I don't recall a single one of those situations where consensual S/M or D&S was a component. I'm not sure that such erotic games would have been acceptable to most of those people.

If one is being unconsciously and non-consensually domineering, one will behave brutally, [physically or psychologically]. If you're unconsciously submissive, then I think there's potential for a great deal of self-deprecation. If you don't really want to give in to your [partner's] demands, but you do it continually, and feel resentful, I think it's very psychologically self-destructive. It leads to considerable anxiety and suppressed rage. [Similarly], you can be brutal [by] demanding things that could be asked for. When you start to make the dynamics of these interactions conscious, you begin to have some choice in the matter. Some people may [become] conscious of being domineering or brutal--or submissive or self-demeaning--and may decide that they don't like these configurations in themselves and want to stop. Then they encounter a new process: learning how not to behave in their old patterns and to behave in new ways. Others [may] find something valuable in dominant or submissive behaviors under certain circumstances. For some people, not only do D&S and S/M provide a safe and consensual arena for these activities, but, because they eroticize them, they make pleasurable experiences that [are] less pleasurable in non-erotic contexts. So if you're accustomed to being domineering and you find that you can get into a sexual situation where you can be dominant and have what you want, you may find that when you go back to the office, you don't have to bully everybody.

There are theorists who will say the cause is genetic; there are theorists who will say the cause is psychodynamic: something happens in childhood that plays itself out later on in life. The theory I am most comfortable with is a combination of nature and nurture, some kind of biological or genetic or psychological predisposition which gets activated somewhere along the line. I am happiest so far with John Money's theory of love maps. He posits that whether or not there is some kind of biochemical predisposition, each person has a kind of mental map delineating what he or she will find erotic.

For example, a child listens to his or her parents in an ongoing, though unconscious, dominant/submission relationship. Dad is very aggressive, very loud, very forceful about how he wants things to be done. Mom, though she may be as intelligent [and] competent, is meeker. Hearing his parents argue or fight or debate, the little child feels some fear. The fear sets up nervous reactions and, because there are a lot of nerve endings in the genital region, the child [is] stimulated. (Children are all sexual. There are videos of children just a few months old masturbating. There are photographs of little boys in utero with erections.) So there's some connection for the little child. If this happens traumatically, or if it happens repeatedly over a period of many years, a love map is activated so that when the child later encounters situations in which control--expressed as D&S--are prominent, he or she may [be] erotically stimulated. If the child begins to masturbate around fantasies connected with this, or starts to engage in other sexual activities, the love map already established is set firmly in place.

People don't get involved with sexuality that is concerned with control, power, and intense sensation without having control, power, and intense sensation as issues in their personal lives. I can't say whether there's a higher percentage of people involved in D&S and S&M activities who were abused as children than otherwise, partly because the people I see as a therapist are coming to me because they have problems. They're not coming to me because they feel great. I'm seeing a skewed population. This is the problem with interviewing psychotherapists under any circumstances: we see people who are in trouble, so [we cannot] extrapolate from our clientele to the real world. [Also], we are in a period right now when the notion of child abuse is extremely prominent. It's part of the popular culture to talk about abuse and it's easy to see childhood itself as a non-consensual situation. We are all socialized and we need to be socialized. But to be socialized means that we [are] dominated, without our consent, by people who have power over us. If we then are unhappy as adults, it's easy to look back and say, "I was abused." We were all abused. But we need to start talking about degrees of abuse and what constitutes the differences between trauma and abuse.

We can call anything arrested sexuality or arrested development. When I'm driving in rush hour traffic and I see intelligent, successful adults screaming at each other, cutting off other cars, risking their lives and dozens of other lives in order to grab 20 feet of space, I see infants functioning in adult bodies. The same can be true in some people's sexuality, whatever the nature of their sexual behavior might be. It may be that some people in [S&M/D&S] communities had unusually difficult childhoods, but then so did a lot of people outside them. You probably could find a similar profile among professional politicians or policemen or the military or physicians or lawyers--anybody who finds satisfaction in controlling other people or the circumstances of their lives. One of the things I find conspicuous about the people I have seen in these [S/M or D&S] communities is the relatively high level of consciousness they exhibit about what they're doing and their willingness to investigate it farther.

It is plausible that the usual notion of normative heterosexuality is what people are mostly supposed to become, but we'll never know as long as we make sex so dirty for children. John Money [once] suggested that if we really wanted children to grow up to be sexually healthy adults, we would treat them the same way we treat young athletes. We'd say, "Go out and practice as much as you can, and when you do well, we'll reward you." Instead, we hide sexuality. It should come as no surprise to those of us who think there's a model of sexuality that people are supposed to follow that lots of people don't. I know that there are some people who are involved with S&M or D&S activities who really cannot get off in any other way, but the same thing is true of missionary position, male-female heterosexuality. I look to maximize options. If people can get off with ordinary missionary- position sex and also with D&S and also with this, that, and the other, then they have many more opportunities for pleasure.

Certainly, there are people who engage in D&S and S/M activities for whom it is a problem or the expression of a problem--but so also there are people who cannot engage in anything but ordinary penis-vagina intercourse for whom [sex] is a problem or the expression of a problem. If someone is really the sort of person who is likely to become a serial killer, he probably won't be talking about it and he probably won't be in so relatively conscious a relationship as S&M. He'll much more likely be repressed or out there doing mayhem.

The fight for sexual freedom that we see waged in the streets and in the courts in our country--and which is not even allowed as a fight in many other countries--is not an irrelevant fight. It is essential to our freedoms and our identities as individuals and as a society. If you control people's sexuality, you control people. The people I have worked with who were involved in conscious S&M or D&S relationships [have] not seemed to me to have been destroyed, damaged, or abused by those relationships. If people are not damaging themselves or others, it really is nobody's business what they are doing.