For many, preferences within BDSM may seem personal and unique, but a new study published in Deviant Behavior suggests that some submissive behaviors could serve a broader purpose in human relationships. Researchers found that women who consistently feel submissive both in sexual and romantic settings are more likely to pursue long-term commitments. These findings may reflect an evolutionary strategy, where hierarchical roles encourage loyalty and emotional investment, fostering stable relationships.
The research is rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology, which examine how certain behaviors and social dynamics may be adaptations that developed to improve survival and reproductive success. In this case, the researchers explored the idea that BDSM, which includes various practices involving consensual power exchange, could reflect ingrained human mating strategies. The researchers hypothesized that some BDSM preferences—particularly submissiveness—might align with broader evolutionary patterns.
Another driving factor for the research was the potential vulnerability of individuals with high submissiveness in relationships. Previous observations suggest that women who adopt submissive roles beyond sexual activities may have a heightened risk of remaining in exploitative relationships. By investigating these patterns, the researchers aimed not only to understand relationship dynamics in BDSM contexts but also to identify psychological or social factors that could support those at risk.
“I was an animal ethologist. We were interested in dominance hierarchy and animal welfare, and our goal was to provide a good life for animals,” said study author Eva Jozifkova, an associate professor at Jan Evangelista Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem.
“During my studies, I witnessed the difficulties faced by individuals who were deliberately misinformed about BDSM by other people with BDSM preferences and who were afraid to seek medical help because BDSM was classified as a mental disorder and sexologists did not have a good reputation among this subpopulation. Due to low English proficiency in the post-communist Czech Republic, there were not enough sources of information about the consensual practice of BDSM, which left individuals vulnerable to exploitation.”
“In addition, the topic was tabooed as a sexual disorder in society, and revealing one’s identity was risky for those with this preference,” Jozifkova explained. “I concluded that the future of animal care was assured due to the high quality of Czech ethology even without my work, but that something needed to be done about BDSM-related sexual preferences to reduce the possibility of psychological abuse, manipulation, blackmail, and partner violence.”
“The situation has improved greatly over time. The new generation can speak English and handle information well; BDSM is no longer considered a psychological disorder, and many professionals are supportive of sexual minorities. However, challenges related to hierarchical status still affect many living beings, including humans. So, I focus on human behavior in my research, though I sometimes revisit animal studies.”
For their study, Jozifkova and her colleagues recruited a sample of 486 participants through an online BDSM community. These participants completed a questionnaire assessing a range of factors, such as their experiences and preferences within BDSM, focusing on the nature of their submissive feelings and expectations in future relationships. The survey also included demographic details like age, educational background, self-assessed attractiveness, and financial status, which were controlled for in the analysis.
One key measure was emotional submissiveness in general social settings, assessed using a modified version of the Early Life Experiences Scale. This allowed the researchers to gauge each participant’s broader tendency toward submissive behavior, extending beyond just romantic relationships.
The researchers divided female participants into three distinct groups based on their self-reported levels of submissiveness and relationship dynamics. These groups included 33 women who felt submissive only during sexual activities (labeled as the “PLAY” group), 48 women who felt submissive in both sexual and relational contexts (“REL” group), and 20 women who enjoyed both submissive and dominant roles during sex (“SWITCH” group).
The study revealed notable differences between these three groups of women regarding their relationship preferences, commitment, and emotional investment.
The women who felt submissive not only in sexual activities but also within their overall relationship dynamics (the “REL” group) demonstrated a stronger preference for long-term, exclusive relationships compared to the other two groups. This group was also more likely to express a desire to invest heavily in their partnerships and tended to miss their partners when they were apart. Women in the REL group reported significantly less interest in short-term, casual encounters, open relationships, or parallel partnerships.
In contrast, the PLAY and SWITCH groups, who either felt submissive only in sexual settings or alternated between submissive and dominant roles, did not exhibit the same level of commitment or preference for exclusivity.
“There are different forms of submissiveness in sexual preferences,” Jozifkova told PsyPost. “Therefore, persons from each group may need different complementary partners. Some respondents experience submissiveness in sex alternately with dominance, some experience only submissiveness in sex, and some experience submissiveness in their relationship with their partner.”
A key finding was that the REL group scored higher on general submissiveness in everyday social situations, as measured by the adapted Early Life Experiences Scale. This suggests that these women not only adopt submissive roles within their romantic relationships but may also carry a broader tendency toward emotional submissiveness in daily interactions.
This general tendency toward submissiveness might align with a preference for stability and cohesion in relationships, supporting the researchers’ “glue hypothesis.” According to this hypothesis, hierarchical dynamics, where one partner takes a submissive role, could help “glue” or bind partners more closely together, enhancing long-term relationship stability. The researchers suggest that this hierarchy is part of an evolutionary strategy in which the dominant partner provides protection or resources, while the submissive partner strengthens the bond through loyalty and emotional investment.
However, this deep commitment and loyalty may also have a downside. Women in the REL group, who exhibit high emotional investment and prioritize hierarchy and monogamy, may be more vulnerable to remaining in potentially toxic or unbalanced relationships. This strong preference for loyalty might make them more likely to maintain these bonds even in situations that could become harmful, as their inclination for stability may override concerns about unequal or abusive dynamics.
“Women who were more submissive to their partners were also more submissive in everyday life,” Jozifkova said. “Those more submissive in everyday life are more vulnerable, have a harder time avoiding and resisting toxic partners, and may engage in riskier sexual activities to please their partner. They are more hurt by discrimination and judgment by the majority, and may be more prone to suicide.”
“A study by Kraft et al. (2021) links low hierarchical status to higher stress and more frequent inflammation, which can lead to riskier behavioral strategies. Although we are all equal according to legal laws, hierarchical status literally acts as a social cage, making it difficult for those in lower ranks to escape grievances caused by those above them. In helping such persons, it is necessary to be aware of the existence of this cage and to address assistance in light of their circumstances.”
While the REL group’s preferences and behaviors largely supported the “glue hypothesis,” the PLAY and SWITCH groups did not exhibit similar patterns, suggesting that their relationship dynamics may be more flexible and less commitment-driven.
This lack of significant difference between the PLAY and SWITCH groups indicates that women whose submissive preferences are confined to sexual interactions or who enjoy switching roles do not necessarily translate these preferences into broader emotional submissiveness or heightened relationship investment.
“I was surprised to find that women differed in their perceptions of future relationships and their hierarchical position in relation to others, not based on their feelings in sexual contexts, but based on their submissive feelings in the relationship outside of sex,” Jozifkova said. “I expected that those experiencing submissiveness in sex would differ from those experiencing both submissiveness and dominance in sex. However, it was the feelings in the relationship outside of sex that were decisive.”
As with all research, there are some limitations. The sample size, though targeted, was relatively small, and the study focused on women within a specific sexual subculture, which limits the generalizability of results. Additionally, as the research relied on self-reported data, participants’ responses may have been influenced by personal biases or social expectations.
Looking ahead, the researchers plan to broaden the sample to include non-BDSM practitioners, which will enhance understanding of these dynamics across different groups. Further investigation could also examine potential biological or psychological traits that could predispose individuals to seek hierarchical or egalitarian relationships.
“A kind look or a few kind words can help save a life or thwart a crime,” Jozifkova added. “Often, it may not be obvious at first glance how tense a person’s situation is, and the kindness of third parties can help tip things over to the better side.”
The study, “Exploring the Evolutionary-Biological Basis of Mating Strategies in Submissive Women: A Comparative Study in Three Subgroups of BDSM Sex Practitioners,” was authored by Eva Jozifkova, Martina Kolackova, and Marek Broul.
