DOI

10.5281/zenodo.20229758

DOI URL

10.5281/zenodo.20229758

Embodied Scripts, Not Demographic Types: Item-Level Demographic Contrasts in BeMoreKinky Non-Monogamy Profiles

Want the practical version? This report makes the case for negotiating exact scripts instead of identity labels. If you want the conversation guide, read Negotiating Boundaries in Non-Monogamy: it turns "are we into this?" into who does what, who knows what, what is recorded, what stops the scene, and how you come back together afterward.

Abstract

BeMoreKinky is a couples-focused application for learning about kink, BDSM, consent, and sexual communication. This exploratory paper synthesizes analyzed BeMoreKinky data on non-monogamy-adjacent kink interests. It asks where Likert items differ by role preference, gender-presentation proxy, partner-gender-presentation proxy, and partnership status, and whether those differences support broad demographic explanations or narrower script-specific interpretations.

The central finding is that broad demographic categories are weak global explanations but useful local lenses. Median effects are modest, and many items show little group separation. The largest contrasts cluster in embodied scripts: feeling ejaculation inside oneself or imagining it, being claimed, partner control, secondary role, partner same-sex contact, one's own same-sex contact, real-time updates, photos or videos, detailed storytelling, and overnight stays with an outside partner. These are scripts about bodies, presence, control, evidence, narrative detail, comparison, and the boundary between sexual openness and romantic continuity, not generic "men like X" or "subs like Y" effects.

The results argue for item-level and script-level modeling rather than demographic typologies. Practically, they suggest asking what exact scenario is desired, by whom, under what governance conditions, and where fantasy, enactment, privacy, and emotional continuity diverge.

Literature Review

Sexual script theory provides the clearest theoretical frame for these findings. Gagnon and Simon argued that sexual conduct is organized through cultural scenarios, interpersonal scripts, and intrapsychic scripts, not simply released by biological or demographic type (Gagnon & Simon, 1973/2017). Later empirical work shows why broad social scripts can still fail as person-level explanations: gendered sexual scripts may be culturally hegemonic while becoming heterogeneous, revised, or refused at dyadic and individual levels (Masters et al., 2013). That is the prior pattern this paper tests inside kink-app data: a profile label such as cuckolding, hotwifing, or group sex is a cultural scenario, but the actionable unit is a scene grammar: who watches, who is touched, who chooses, who receives details, and what happens afterward. CNM research similarly cautions against reading non-monogamy through demographic typologies. Lifetime CNM experience appears common in U.S. quota samples and is largely stable across many demographic categories, with some gender and sexual-orientation gradients but no simple type boundary (Haupert et al., 2017). Work on diversity in CNM argues that apparent demographic homogeneity often reflects recruitment artifacts rather than the population itself (Rubin et al., 2014). Research on polyamory further shows subtype specificity: romantic and sexual multi-partner openness is distinct from swinging or open relationships where romance may be bounded differently, and few sociodemographic correlates emerge in representative sampling (Moors et al., 2021). Taken together, this literature supports treating demographic contrasts as local lenses on scripts, not global explanations of desire.

Kink, fantasy, and CNM-process literatures sharpen this item-level frame. BDSM role research distinguishes identity, frequency, and role fluidity: switches are a substantial group and choose roles situationally, so dom/sub/switch categories are better read as enacted positions than fixed personalities (Martinez, 2018; Bennett, 2025). Large BDSM studies also reject pathology models while showing role-linked gradients rather than hard typologies (Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013), and field physiology work suggests that top/bottom roles create distinct embodied responses while successful scenes can increase post-scene closeness (Sagarin et al., 2009). Cuckolding and swinging research converges with this account: gay men's cuckolding fantasies vary by watching, listening, hearing afterward, partner-pleasure focus, and optional BDSM elements (Lehmiller et al., 2018), while swinging couples describe entry, rules, and verbal/nonverbal communication as the mechanism that makes extra-dyadic sex workable (Kimberly & Hans, 2017). Jealousy and compersion studies also move the explanation from demographic sex to negotiated boundary: in CNM samples, gender differences in jealousy diminish and distress is organized around consent violations (Mogilski et al., 2019). Consent scholarship makes the same methodological point in practical terms: willingness is communicated through ongoing verbal, nonverbal, and context-sensitive negotiation (Beres, 2014), BDSM consent requires mutual informed consent of all involved (Dunkley & Brotto, 2020), and intimate-media dissemination requires separate consent from creation or receipt (Clancy et al., 2023). These findings justify reading BeMoreKinky's high-consensus check-in, sexual-health, media, and aftercare items as governance scripts rather than secondary caveats.

Data Provenance and Scope

The demographic-contrast analysis reports 182,340 respondent-by-item Likert rows, 3,548 submissions, and 2,480 unique items, with item text and quiz/subscale placement validated against the profile codebook. Reader-facing interpretation uses raw responses: higher values mean stronger agreement with the exact item wording. Reverse-scored items are still read as exact statements because this paper concerns plain-language endorsement, not final psychometric trait scores.

The focus is the non-monogamy and adjacent profiles highlighted by the reports: Cuckolding, Hotwife, ENM Readiness, Group Sex & Swinging, Exhibitionism / Voyeurism, Breeding Kink where it intersects with non-monogamy-adjacent embodied scripts, and Trigger & Trauma where safety and consent context informs interpretation.

Analytic Approach

The source analysis scanned item-level raw-response differences across four axes: role preference (dom, sub, switch), gender-presentation proxy (masculine, feminine, both), partner-gender-presentation proxy (masculine, feminine, both), and partnership status (partnered, multiple, single).

Unknown groups were retained in coverage tables but excluded from substantive contrast rankings. Group/item combinations with fewer than 20 responses were excluded. The reports compare group means, top-two-box (T2B) shares, mean differences, Cohen's d, and eta-squared. Because the scan covers many items and axes, results are exploratory, descriptive, and hypothesis-generating.

This paper treats the largest item-level rows as signs of where demographic axes become meaningful, not as evidence that identity determines kink interest. Interpretive weight falls on exact item wording, top-two-box differences, ranked mean differences, and repeated thematic convergence. Effect sizes are used as exploratory ranking signals in a high-multiple-comparison screen.

Demographic Coverage

The data support item-level contrast scanning for role preference, gender-presentation proxy, and partner-gender-presentation proxy. Partnership status has more limited coverage outside Hotwife items.

The coverage itself matters. Role, gender presentation, and partner gender presentation are usable but imperfect proxies. Partnership status is dominated by partnered respondents, and multiple-partner respondents are often too sparse for item-level comparison. This limits broad claims about "single," "partnered," or "multiple-partner" people.

Headline Result: Broad Effects Are Modest, Specific Scripts Are Sharp

Median eta-squared values are small across the major axes. Even when individual rows are large, the largest contrasts concentrate in particular sexual scripts rather than spread evenly across whole instruments.

The strongest interpretation is not that one demographic group likes non-monogamy more than another. Some embodied scenarios make demographic contrasts visible, especially when an item names a body position, role, control structure, witness position, same-sex-contact frame, narrative detail, or emotional-continuity boundary. The actionable information lives in exact scripts.

Results 1: Internal Ejaculation and Being Claimed Are the Clearest Embodied Contrasts

The largest recurring contrast concerns the item:

Feeling ejaculation inside me (or imagining it) is a major turn-on for me.

This Breeding Kink item matters here because it captures an embodied receptive script: internal ejaculation or the imagination of it as an erotic event. It is one of the clearest script-specific demographic contrasts.

The same script also appears in a related item:

The theme is arousing because it feels like being "claimed."

Again, endorsement is higher among subs than doms, feminine than masculine respondents, and respondents with masculine-presenting partners than those with feminine-presenting partners.

The point is not simply that "subs" or "feminine respondents" like breeding-coded language. The item names bodily location, imagined evidence, and claiming. It is not a global preference for non-monogamy, exhibitionism, or kink intensity, nor evidence of real-world reproductive intent. The profile narrative reports strong consent mindfulness: 85.1% top-two-box endorsement for "I would rather drop the theme than risk harming trust" and 83.3% for explicit mutual agreement about pregnancy-risk-related behavior. Entitlement and contraception resentment were low.

Clinically and educationally, this script requires separating fantasy charge, body symbolism, pregnancy risk, contraception agreements, STI risk, and consent.

Results 2: Cuckolding Contrasts Are About Control, Secondary Position, and Partner Pleasure

The Cuckolding Profile shows some of the strongest role-preference contrasts, centered on specific structures of control, attention, and hierarchy rather than broad cuckolding interest.

Sub-identified respondents more strongly endorsed partner control, secondary positioning, and degradation-coded language. Dom-identified respondents more strongly endorsed controlling pacing. Switch respondents often sat between these poles or exceeded both on comparison and flexible-participation items.

The broader profile narrative prevents overstatement. Cuckolding respondents also endorsed primary-bond security and reconnection: 82.9% T2B agreement that the bond remains primary, 75.7% preference for immediate physical closeness afterward, and 74.3% preference for a clear stop signal. They were not uniformly drawn to absence or humiliation: "I prefer being elsewhere and getting updates rather than being present" was rejected by 57.1%, and "Being spoken to in ways that make me feel 'less than' is appealing to me" had 52.9% bottom-two-box endorsement overall despite being high among some sub-identified respondents.

The contrast is real where the script is exact, but it should not become a global claim that cuckolding is inherently humiliation-driven, absence-driven, or submissive-coded.

Results 3: Same-Sex Contact in Group Settings Splits by Whose Contact Is Named

Group sex and swinging items distinguish interest in same-sex contact for oneself from comfort with a partner having same-sex contact in group settings.

The difference depends on whether the item names the respondent's body or the partner's body. Sub-identified respondents were higher than dom-identified respondents on same-sex contact for themselves, while dom-identified respondents were higher on comfort with partner same-sex contact. Masculine-presenting respondents were much higher than feminine-presenting respondents on partner same-sex contact in group settings.

For couples and educators, collapsing both into "same-sex group play" would erase the core difference. A person may be comfortable watching or knowing that a partner has same-sex contact without wanting it for themselves; another may want their own same-sex contact while feeling differently about their partner's.

The wider Group Sex & Swinging Profile places this in a governance frame. The most endorsed items were couple-container items: 91.5% T2B for leaving together no matter what happens, 91.5% for discussing testing and sexual health practices before meeting, 90.2% for physical closeness afterward, and 87.8% for a pre-agreed check-in cue. Erotic openness appears inside a high-contact couple process.

Results 4: Partner-Gender Presentation Is Especially Visible in Detail, Updates, and Media

The partner-gender-presentation proxy shows strong contrasts in cuckolding communication items. Respondents with feminine-presenting partners were much higher than respondents with masculine-presenting partners on storytelling, media review, updates, and invited-partner focus on the partner's pleasure.

These are evidence-and-narration effects, not generic partner-gender effects. They involve hearing what happened, receiving updates, reviewing visual records, and focusing on the partner's pleasure. They are about mediated presence: being connected to the encounter through detail, image, message, or narrative.

For some respondents, the erotic object is not only the sex act but its later or real-time transformation into shared knowledge. Storytelling, photos, messages, and details make the outside event legible inside the primary bond.

The practical caution is privacy and consent. Photos, videos, and detailed storytelling require consent from everyone involved, not only the primary couple. Clinically and educationally, hotwife/cuckolding practice needs an explicit "whose information is this?" conversation.

Results 5: Partnership Status Is the Weakest Axis, With a Narrow Hotwife Signal Around Overnights

Partnership status is the weakest demographic axis. The strongest rows are mostly Hotwife Profile items, and single-partnered comparisons are often the only contrasts with enough item-level coverage.

The most notable item is:

Overnight stays with an outside partner are appealing to me.

Single respondents endorsed this more than partnered respondents: T2B 50.0% versus 18.5%, mean diff. 5.15, d 3.60.

Other partnership-status rows point in the same direction but should be treated cautiously:

The profile narrative helps interpret this. Hotwife respondents strongly endorsed transparency, boundary-compatible outside partners, equal enthusiasm, reassurance, and reconnection, while rejecting repeated emotional closeness and overnights more strongly than outside sex itself. Across the Hotwife profile, 88.2% endorsed outside partners being comfortable with the primary partner knowing details, 87.3% endorsed clear boundaries and structure, 86.0% wanted equal enthusiasm, and 86.0% valued reassurance afterward. Only 25.3% endorsed overnight stays and 22.2% endorsed repeated emotional closeness with an outside partner.

The contrast does not mean partnered respondents reject hotwifing. It means partnered respondents appear more cautious around emotional continuity and overnight structure, while single respondents in these data are more open to those extensions. Clinically, this maps onto a distinction between sexual openness and romantic openness.

Results 6: "Both" Gender-Presentation Respondents Sometimes Mark a Distinct Script Position

The gender-presentation proxy includes a "both" group with enough coverage to appear in some contrasts. It should not be treated as residual. In several Cuckolding items, the "both" group is higher-endorsing, especially around degradation-coded language and real-time communication.

Examples from the contrast report include:

These exploratory rows warn against binary overreading. Some strong script alignments are not clean masculine/feminine splits. The "both" group may include heterogeneous identities, presentations, and relationship contexts, but analytically it prevents an overly simple gender story.

The "Not Much Difference" Finding

The key anti-finding is that many exact items do not show large demographic separation. Broad demographics are weaker than the strongest rows might suggest. Partnership status is the clearest weak axis. Even role preference and gender presentation do not turn the instruments into typologies.

This matters because sexual cultures often over-explain desire through identity shortcuts: men versus women, doms versus subs, partnered versus single, straight versus queer, experienced versus inexperienced. The BeMoreKinky data are more granular. Where differences are visible, the item usually has a specific scene grammar:

• Who is touched?
• Who watches, and who is watched?
• Who chooses the outside partner?
• Who controls pacing?
• Who receives evidence?
• Is the respondent present, absent, nearby, or updated remotely?
• Is the outside connection sexual, affectionate, repeated, or overnight?
• Is the erotic charge in the body, the partner's pleasure, the comparison, the story, the risk, or the reconnection?

Those features are better predictors than broad labels alone.

Discussion: What Counts as an Embodied Script?

This paper uses "embodied script" to mean an erotic scenario that specifies bodies, roles, positions, information flow, or emotional continuity. It is more precise than a kink label: "cuckolding" is a label; "my partner chooses the invited person while I am in a secondary role and receive detailed storytelling afterward" is a script.

BeMoreKinky users do not merely sort themselves into kink categories. Demographic axes become visible when an item names a specific erotic grammar.

Four script families stand out.

First, receptive embodiment: internal ejaculation, being claimed, and being in a bodily receiving position. This is where role preference, gender-presentation proxy, and partner-gender-presentation proxy align most sharply.

Second, control and hierarchy: partner in charge, respondent in a secondary role, humiliation-coded language, and respondent control over pacing. These are not universal cuckolding features, but they differentiate some role groups.

Third, mediated presence: real-time updates, detailed storytelling, reviewing photos or videos, and hearing what happened. These items transform an outside event into a shared narrative or artifact.

Fourth, emotional-continuity boundaries: overnights, cuddling, repeated emotional closeness, texting between encounters, and whether the primary partner can see or hear what happens. These mark the line between sexual openness and ongoing romantic attachment.

Implications for Research

For academia, the main implication is methodological. Non-monogamy and kink preference should be modeled below the category level. A survey or app analysis that asks only whether a person is interested in "cuckolding," "swinging," "hotwifing," "voyeurism," or "exhibitionism" will miss meaningful contrasts.

Future quantitative work should treat items as nested within scripts, scripts within profiles, and respondents within relationship contexts where possible. Multilevel models could separate broad demographic effects from item-specific interactions. Item-response models could test whether the largest contrast items behave like coherent latent-trait indicators or local script flags. Dyadic models could ask whether one partner's script endorsement predicts the other partner's comfort, conflict, or proposal response.

The data also argue against using demographic categories as causal explanations. The current analyses are descriptive, self-selected, app-based, and affected by premium gating and missingness. Their strongest contribution is the shape of within-platform erotic decision-making, not population prevalence.

Implications for Psychologists and Clinicians

For psychologists, sex therapists, and relationship counselors, the findings support assessment that moves quickly from labels to scenes.

Instead of asking only:

Are you into cuckolding?

Ask:

• Do you want to be present, nearby, absent, or updated remotely?
• Who chooses the outside person?
• Is the erotic charge in your partner being desired, you feeling secondary, comparison, humiliation, pride, compersion, or reconnection?
• Do you want details afterward, real-time messages, photos/videos, or no media?
• Which information belongs to the outside partner and requires explicit consent before sharing?
• Is overnight time erotic, threatening, logistically useful, or outside the agreement?
• Is affection with the outside partner different from sex with the outside partner?

Instead of asking only:

Are you open to group sex?

Ask:

• Are you interested in same-sex contact for yourself?
• Are you comfortable with your partner having same-sex contact?
• Do you want to leave together no matter what happens?
• What check-in cue works without stopping the entire scene?
• What sexual-health conversation is required before the meeting?
• What repair process happens if something feels off?

This avoids both pathologizing and over-normalizing. The same profile can contain strong erotic interest and strong boundaries. The clinical task is to determine whether the exact script is consensual, specific, mutually understood, and supported by repair.

Implications for Kink Educators and Community Experts

For kink educators, the results validate a practical principle: people negotiate scenes, not labels. The largest contrasts concern who controls pacing, who is present, what details are shared, how same-sex contact is framed, and where the relationship container reasserts itself afterward.

Education for non-monogamy-adjacent kink should therefore prioritize:

• Script decomposition: separate presence, participation, partner choice, acts, media, updates, affection, overnights, and aftercare.
• Consent beyond the primary couple: include the invited partner's privacy, image consent, storytelling consent, and ongoing-contact boundaries.
• Difference between fantasy and enactment: especially for breeding-coded, humiliation-coded, and comparison-coded scripts.
• Reconnection planning: not only "what are we allowed to do?" but "how do we come back together?"
• Media governance: who can record, who can see, whether material is deleted, and what can be described later.

The data also warn against stereotype-based teaching. A room of "subs," "doms," "masculine people," "feminine people," "singles," or "couples" will not be internally uniform.

Implications for Kinky People and Couples

For users and couples, a label-level mismatch may hide a script-level match, and a label-level match may hide a serious script-level mismatch. "Yes" to hotwifing may mean same-location presence and immediate reconnection, or independent dates, affection, texting, repeat partners, and overnights. "Yes" to cuckolding may mean humiliation and secondary status, or pride, partner pleasure, visual evidence, and reassurance without degradation. "Yes" to group sex may mean comfort with partner same-sex contact but not personal same-sex contact, or the reverse.

The recommendation is simple: translate labels into sentences. A useful sentence names who does what, who knows what, who controls what, what happens afterward, and what is off the table.

Limitations

These findings come from a self-selected kink app population, not a representative population sample. Non-monogamy-related content is premium-gated in the broader BeMoreKinky export, so access and motivation are confounded. Demographic variables are proxy fields with unknown, neutral, and sparse categories. Partnership-status contrasts are especially limited. Many analyses are item-level screens over large numbers of comparisons, so the largest rows are hypotheses and descriptive contrasts rather than confirmed effects.

Endorsement is not evidence of enacted behavior. A person can endorse a fantasy, reject enactment, want a scene only under rare conditions, or use the app to explore language before bringing anything to a partner. Governance items - trust, check-ins, disclosure, sexual health, aftercare, and repair - are among the strongest signals. Interpretation should keep fantasy, readiness, and behavior separate.

Conclusion

The BeMoreKinky findings align closely with sexual-script theory: demographic axes become meaningful only when the item names a concrete arrangement of bodies, roles, information flow, and aftercare. That pattern is what Gagnon and Simon's script model would predict if profile labels operate as broad cultural scenarios while users negotiate interpersonal and intrapsychic scripts (Gagnon & Simon, 1973/2017); it also matches research showing that cultural gender scripts become heterogeneous at dyadic and individual levels (Masters et al., 2013). The weak global demographic effects in this paper are therefore not an absence of structure. They are evidence that the structure sits below the demographic label, in script features such as receptive embodiment, partner control, secondary positioning, same-sex contact, mediated presence, and emotional-continuity boundaries.

The findings also sit comfortably with CNM and kink research showing that negotiated practice matters more than type. National CNM studies find broad prevalence with limited demographic sorting (Haupert et al., 2017; Moors et al., 2021), while cuckolding and swinging research describes heterogeneous partner-pleasure, watching/listening/storytelling, rule-making, and communication scripts (Lehmiller et al., 2018; Kimberly & Hans, 2017). BDSM role-fluidity and consent/media research explains why dom/sub/switch differences can be real without becoming personality typologies (Bennett, 2025; Dunkley & Brotto, 2020; Clancy et al., 2023). The practical conclusion is to ask exact-scene questions: which version, with whom, with what consent, privacy, sexual-health, media, and reconnection rules, and what boundary separates fantasy, enactment, sex, affection, and romance?

The practical companion to this report: Stop Negotiating Labels. Negotiate the Scene.

---