In mixed-method research by Katherine Martinez, participants described not only their BDSM identity but also how the roles they actually took changed over time, across settings and scenes, and with different partners. That flexibility was one of the important features of the experiences described by people identifying as switches. The sample was relatively small — 202 questionnaires and 25 interviews — so it gives us a useful view of the phenomenon rather than a universal map of BDSM.
Larger datasets also suggest that role structure is more complicated than a single line with “dominant” at one end and “submissive” at the other. An analysis of more than 236,000 anonymous BDSM Test profiles found that role preferences did not fit neatly onto one binary scale.
At the same time, sexual role and everyday personality can overlap to some degree. In a study of 279 BDSM practitioners, people in dominant roles scored higher on average in interpersonal dominance than switches and submissives. But the authors were careful not to suggest that a BDSM role simply transfers into everyday behaviour or defines a person’s entire personality.
So we don’t need to choose between two tidy explanations: “BDSM completely reflects personality” or “BDSM has absolutely nothing to do with personality.”
A role can be part of identity, a preference, a form of play, a response to a particular partner — and it can change as the context changes. That is probably more interesting than trying to put everyone permanently into one of two boxes.