DOI

10.5281/zenodo.20229752

DOI URL

10.5281/zenodo.20229752

From Fantasy to Action: Actionability, Avoidance, and Proposal Decay in BeMoreKinky Non-Monogamy Engagement

Want the practical version? This report explains why some fantasies become partner-facing proposals and others quietly stall. For the usable playbook, read Starting Non-Monogamy with Your Partner: it shows how to move from hot idea to specific, reversible, emotionally clear first steps.

Abstract

BeMoreKinky is a couples-focused application for learning about kink, BDSM, consent, and sexual communication. Using analyzed, anonymized platform reports, this paper asks when non-monogamy-adjacent interests move from private preference or fantasy into partner-facing action. The scope covers non-monogamy, exhibitionism, voyeurism, cuckolding/hotwifing, group play, and related behaviors.

Across activity-preference, proposal, and dyadic reports, private, couple-contained exhibitionism is the most broadly accepted and readily proposed domain. Sharing sexy photos, watching a partner masturbate, receiving private videos, and recording private sex tapes show high yes-rates, frequent mutual green lights, and comparatively strong proposal acceptance. Cuckolding and hotwife fantasy are more polarized: some items are highly salient in forced-choice contexts, but many proposals, especially fantasy-framed ones, expire rather than being accepted or declined. Group play sits between them, with high "maybe" responses that likely reflect logistics, safer-sex planning, partner trust, and situational negotiation.

The central contribution is an actionability model: desire converts more readily when an activity is private, reversible, couple-contained, low-logistics, and discussable without identity threat. Expiration, silence, and non-response should be treated as relational outcomes, not missing data.

Data Context and Scope

The activity-preference analysis focuses on five non-monogamy-related subcategories: Cuckolding, Cuckolding phrases, Exhibitionism, Group Play, and Voyeurism or Exhibitionism. The focused frame contains hundreds of thousands of activity responses from thousands of users. The proposal analysis contains 855 non-monogamy-containing daily play proposals from 448 proposers to 475 recipients. The dyadic analysis includes active relationship records, relationship-level activity concordance, proposal linkages, and compatibility scorecards.

Together, activity swipes, maybe responses, forced choices, proposals, expirations, dyadic concordance, articles, AI scenes, and journals capture private preference disclosure, relative salience, partner-facing action, stalled negotiation, dyadic fit, and rehearsal. This structure helps distinguish fantasy, curiosity, and action.

Literature Review

Sexual-fantasy research gives this paper its central boundary condition: fantasy content, arousal intensity, and behavioral readiness are related but not interchangeable. A contemporary review concludes that few fantasies are statistically rare, yet fantasy is not necessarily synonymous with in-person interest or behavior (Lehmiller & Gormezano, 2023). That distinction is especially important for consensual non-monogamy. Among monogamously partnered adults, CNM themes appear in favorite fantasies often enough to be socially meaningful, but future desire, disclosure, and enactment remain separate steps (Lehmiller, 2020). Population and national-sample studies show the same separation in adjacent domains: paraphilic interests exceed enacted behaviors (Joyal & Carpentier, 2017), and desire, familiarity, respect, and engagement in polyamory were measured as separate prevalence constructs (Moors et al., 2021). Cuckolding research is particularly relevant because it identifies fantasy, enactment, and positive outcome as conditional rather than automatic, varying with fantasy content, personality, and attachment (Lehmiller et al., 2018). Swinging studies similarly describe movement from fantasy to reality as a negotiated process organized by staged entry, rules, verbal and nonverbal communication, and couple-level containment (Kimberly & Hans, 2017). Work on jealousy management in swinging adds that the same third-party situation can be threatening or arousing depending on whether couples build a shared identity and shared boundaries around it (de Visser & McDonald, 2007); philosophical work on polyamory similarly treats third-party intimacy as interpretive emotional work rather than a simple behavioral preference (Brunning, 2018).

The actionability model also draws on sexual communication, consent, and topic-avoidance literatures. Sexting research has reframed erotic messages and images as common among adults, frequently occurring in committed-relationship contexts and associated most clearly with sexual satisfaction (Stasko & Geller, 2015). This fits the present paper's distinction between controlled partner-facing visibility and higher-risk audience expansion. More broadly, couples' sexual communication is positively associated with sexual function, making communication a plausible pathway by which private preference becomes mutually usable erotic script (Mallory et al., 2019). Yet sexual disclosure is also unusually threatening: barriers include threat to self, partner, and relationship, fear of revealing incompatibility, difficulty refusing, and anxiety about partner response (Rehman et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2022). General topic-avoidance theory treats silence as motivated and heterogeneous, often organized around privacy, conflict avoidance, and relationship protection (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000). Conversation analysis of sexual refusal shows why explicit "no" may be rare: refusal is frequently accomplished through delay, mitigation, or indirectness rather than a direct negative turn (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999). Consent scholarship adds the necessary ethical limit: no-response cues are informative but cannot be treated as willingness or consent (Beres, 2014); related consent research shows that people define, communicate, and interpret consent and nonconsent through both verbal and nonverbal indicators (Jozkowski et al., 2014). These literatures support treating proposal expiration as relational data while refusing to collapse silence into consent, rejection, or technical absence.

Results

1. Private Exhibitionism Is the Broadest Stable Interest

The activity-preference analysis shows a clear hierarchy. Exhibitionism has high response volume, broad user coverage, and a 72.1% yes-or-maybe rate. Group Play has a lower yes rate but a high maybe rate. Cuckolding and especially Cuckolding phrases are more rejection-heavy.

The first row is sparse, with only 24 users and 615 responses, so the robust broad-interest finding is Exhibitionism.

The highest yes-rate items are overwhelmingly private, dyadic, and low-logistics:

The pattern is controlled visibility, not exposure in general: partner-only media, watched masturbation, and an erotic frame close to the existing relationship.

2. Proposal Behavior Confirms the Actionability of Private Exhibitionism

The proposal analysis includes 855 non-monogamy-containing daily play proposals. Median proposal size was 40 total activities, with a median of 4 non-monogamy activities. Exhibitionism appeared in 530 proposal rows, or 62.0% of proposals.

The activity-level proposal table again centers private or semi-private exhibitionism:

This is the paper's clearest conversion finding: privately exciting, couple-contained activities also appear in partner-facing proposals and achieve comparatively strong acceptance. Watched masturbation, erotic media, and private sex tapes are actionable scripts, not only fantasies.

Not every high-interest activity needs the proposal surface. "Receive a sexy photo from your partner" and "Share a sexy photo with your partner" are among the strongest private preference and dyadic green-light items, yet they do not appear in the highest-volume proposed-activity table. Low-friction private media may be handled through ordinary couple communication or preference matching rather than formal proposals. That separates stalled desires from behaviors that bypass the proposal channel.

3. Cuckolding Fantasy Is Proposed, but Often Decays Instead of Resolving

Cuckolding and cuckolding phrases are present in proposals and forced choices, but individual preference acceptance is lower and proposal outcomes are more fragile.

The clearest case is "Do cuckolding play only as a fantasy." It was proposed 110 times, accepted 15 times, and expired 65 times, with no direct declines. Fantasy-only framing might seem lower-risk, but the data suggest that even fantasy-framed cuckolding can carry enough emotional, identity, or relational weight that recipients neither reject nor accept it.

A direct "no" is not the only boundary signal. Silence or expiration may mean:

1. The fantasy is arousing but hard to discuss.
2. The recipient needs more relational context.
3. The request feels too identity-laden or threatening.
4. The couple lacks a shared script for fantasy-only play.
5. The proposal format asks for a decision before emotional groundwork has been done.

For cuckolding and hotwifing, the passage from fantasy to action may require agreement about meaning, not only consent to an act: humiliation or pride, comparison or compersion, real-life possibility or erotic story, aftercare or reclamation, and whether third-party sexuality is literal, symbolic, or imagined.

4. Group Play Is a "Maybe" Domain, Not Simply a Low-Interest Domain

Group Play sits between private exhibitionism and cuckolding. It has a 37.0% yes rate and a 23.2% maybe rate, the highest among the major subcategories. That makes it different from simple rejection.

Maybe-heavy items include:

"Maybe" may be its own readiness state: "not now," "only with the right people," "after testing," "with safer-sex agreements," "if my partner is enthusiastic," or "only in fantasy." Collapsing maybe into no erases the negotiation work non-monogamy requires.

Group Play also appears high-salience in forced-choice contexts. "Play with another couple" and "Three person experience (MMF)" were among top items with at least 100 offers, suggesting that group play is hard for many users to endorse but compelling for some.

5. Broad Acceptance and High-Salience Preference Are Different Things

The forced-choice analysis reverses part of the swipe hierarchy. Exhibitionism has the strongest broad yes-or-maybe pattern, but in head-to-head comparison wins less often per offer than Cuckolding phrases and Group Play.

This suggests two separable dimensions:

This explains why some cuckolding and group-play content can be erotically powerful while converting poorly into partner-facing proposals. Salience is not actionability.

6. Expiration Is a Meaningful Proposal Outcome

The proposal funnel shows rare direct decline and common expiration. In DS-11, accepted proposals are the largest resolved category; direct declines numbered 35, while expirations numbered 240. Among accepted, declined, and expired proposals, acceptance was 56.7%.

Because viewed_at was not populated, the view step cannot be measured. Among rows with responded_at, median response time was 1.05 hours, with an interquartile range of 0.20 to 11.28 hours.

Expiration is not just technical noise. In sensitive erotic contexts, non-response can preserve harmony, avoid conflict, delay a decision, or show that the proposal moved faster than the relationship conversation. It is an outcome for research, a design cue for follow-up scaffolding, and a signal for couples to discuss meaning before re-proposing.

7. Dyadic Concordance Explains Why Popularity Alone Is Not Enough

Partner-level analysis shows why global item popularity cannot substitute for dyadic fit. In relationship concordance, Exhibitionism has the highest mutual-yes rate, while Cuckolding phrases have the highest mutual-no and exact-match rates.

The top mutual-yes activities are mostly private, reversible, and couple-contained:

Hard-conflict activities more often involve public exposure, humiliation/comparison language, supervised partner sharing, third-party encounters, or watching a partner with someone else. The more an activity changes relationship meaning, the less global popularity predicts dyadic safety.

8. Proposal-Linked Relationships Show Both More Opportunity and More Boundary Discovery

The dyadic report includes compatibility scorecards for relationships where both partners rated overlapping non-monogamy activities. Within that high-information subset, 60 relationships had at least 3 linked non-monogamy proposals. Compared with relationships without linked proposals, those 60 had:

This does not prove that proposals improve compatibility; it likely reflects selection and engagement volume. Still, couples who engage more deeply with non-monogamy appear to uncover more possibilities and more boundaries. Progress may mean clearer conflicts, not fewer conflicts.

9. Articles, AI Scenes, and Journals Form a Rehearsal Layer

Not every meaningful non-monogamy engagement surface is an action surface. Articles had high read engagement and meaningful bookmarking: high-volume pieces skewed toward hotwife challenges and getting-started content, while high bookmark rates appeared around polyamory, jealousy management, video voyeurism, and therapy for open relationships. Users seem to read for ideas but save relational-support content for later.

AI scene generation was the strongest non-swipe creative surface: 4,532 non-monogamy-linked generations from 1,044 distinct users. Exhibitionism appeared in 55.1% of scenes, Cuckolding in 37.7%, Group Play in 24.4%, and Cuckolding phrases in 20.6%. Most generations were scenes, messages, letters, or scripts: rehearsal for erotic language, fantasy structure, and partner communication before concrete proposal.

Journal metadata contained 2,235 non-monogamy-context entries from 1,008 distinct users. Journal bodies are encrypted and absent, so no content claims can be made. The metadata mostly ties entries to subcategory contexts and reflective prompts, especially Group Play, Cuckolding, Exhibitionism, and Cuckolding phrases, suggesting meaning-making rather than enactment.

Together, these surfaces imply an action ladder:

The Actionability Model

The data support five actionability dimensions:

Private exhibitionism scores high because it is usually private, reversible, couple-contained, logistically simple, and legible as mutual erotic attention. Group play adds logistics, safer-sex negotiation, and third-party selection. Cuckolding and hotwifing add meaning instability: Who has power? Is humiliation wanted? Is comparison real or scripted? Is the fantasy symbolic, virtual, or actionable? What happens after?

Desire becomes action when erotic charge is matched by relational clarity. The most actionable activities are not necessarily the most intense; they are the ones structured enough to survive being offered to a partner.

Discussion

For Academic Researchers

The data argue against treating non-monogamy, exhibitionism, cuckolding, and group play as a single latent appetite. The categories have different preference distributions, maybe rates, forced-choice salience, and proposal outcomes. Future models should separate broad acceptability, high-salience fantasy, dyadic concordance, and proposal conversion. They should also treat expiration as theoretically important, especially where direct decline is socially difficult.

For Practicing Psychologists

The actionability gap is clinically useful. Arousal around cuckolding, hotwifing, group sex, or public exposure does not mean the fantasy is ready for enactment. The data suggest asking separate questions:

1. Is this a private fantasy, a shared fantasy, or a desired real-world behavior?
2. What exact version of the activity is being proposed?
3. Who sees, knows, records, or participates?
4. What would count as a pause, a no, or a successful first step?
5. What does the activity mean to each partner?
6. What aftercare or reconnection is expected?

The low direct-decline rate also matters clinically. Some partners may avoid answering rather than risk hurting the proposer, revealing jealousy, or admitting uncertainty. Silence should be explored as information, not framed immediately as rejection or consent.

For Kink Educators and Community Experts

The results validate a common community distinction: fantasy, negotiation, and play are different skills. Private exhibitionism can be a bridge because it lets couples practice being seen, asking, responding, and stopping without third parties. Group play and cuckolding/hotwifing need more scaffolding: safer sex, privacy, third-party ethics, jealousy plans, veto rules, aftercare, and repair.

The data also caution against assuming that the most provocative items are the most actionable. Humiliation/comparison cuckolding phrases may be salient for a subset while producing high rejection or mutual-no patterns. Educators should separate erotic intensity from relational readiness.

For Kinky People and Couples

The most practical takeaway is that "I want this" is not one statement. It can mean private fantasy, disclosure, discussion, a small private version, a real-world version with rules, or reassurance afterward.

The data suggest that couples may do better when they start with actionability, not extremity. A sexy photo, private video, or watched masturbation may be easier first steps than a third-party scenario. For cuckolding or hotwifing, fantasy-only play may still need boundaries: what is said, what is not said, whether names or real people are involved, whether humiliation is wanted, and how partners reconnect afterward.

Product and Design Implications

The data suggest several product principles:

1. Treat expiration as a first-class outcome. An expired proposal can trigger a lower-pressure reflection or conversation prompt.
2. Separate "fantasy only," "curious," "would discuss," and "ready to try." Yes/maybe/no is useful, but the fantasy-to-action gap needs more nuance.
3. Protect private exhibitionism pathways. Photo, video, and watched-sex activities require strong privacy, consent, and deletion controls.
4. Offer scaffolding for high-meaning proposals. Cuckolding, hotwifing, and group play may need pre-proposal checklists around jealousy, safer sex, third parties, aftercare, and whether the scenario is symbolic or literal.
5. Use dyadic fit rather than global popularity. Popular items can still be hard conflicts for particular couples.
6. Preserve rehearsal spaces. Articles, AI scenes, and journals support learning and fantasy development before direct action.

Limitations

BeMoreKinky users are self-selected and kink-engaged, so results are not population prevalence estimates. Non-monogamy activities are heavily premium-gated, so access, willingness to pay, and app tenure are major confounds. Demographic fields have substantial unknownness, especially around couple configuration.

Proposal counts are modest relative to activity-swipe volume. The proposal view step cannot be measured because viewed_at is not populated. Expiration is interpretable but not definitive: an expired proposal could mean avoidance, uncertainty, lack of app use, timing mismatch, or technical/product factors. Journal bodies are encrypted and unavailable, so journal findings are metadata-only. Relationship-level analyses are observational and cannot establish causality.

Finally, surfaces use different analytic grains, so activity-preference rows, proposal rows, unique proposals, and relationship-resolved proposals are not directly interchangeable.

Conclusion

The BeMoreKinky findings align with the broader literature by showing that erotic salience is only one ingredient in action. Fantasy research warns against equating what people imagine with what they want or do in person (Lehmiller & Gormezano, 2023), while CNM-specific studies separate desire, willingness, disclosure, and engagement (Lehmiller, 2020; Moors et al., 2021). The app data reproduce that pattern at the behavioral-surface level. Private exhibitionism converts most readily because it is relatively private, reversible, couple-contained, and already supported by a recognizable erotic-media script. Group play remains a "maybe" domain because desire must pass through partner selection, safer-sex planning, rules, and shared couple identity, the same process described in swinging research (Kimberly & Hans, 2017; de Visser & McDonald, 2007). Cuckolding and hotwifing show the sharpest fantasy-to-action gap because the act cannot be interpreted apart from jealousy, comparison, pride, humiliation, compersion, or relationship status.

The strongest theoretical implication is that proposal outcomes should be modeled as relational communication, not merely product conversion. The literature predicts that explicit sexual communication is valuable but threatening (Mallory et al., 2019; Rehman et al., 2019), and that avoidance, delay, and indirect refusal can protect face or relationship stability (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000; Kitzinger & Frith, 1999). This makes expiration meaningful, but not self-interpreting. It may mark uncertainty, avoidance, non-use, boundary-setting, or insufficient shared meaning. The practical conclusion is therefore conservative: couples should treat fantasy as material for staged conversation, not as an enactment mandate. Activities become more actionable when partners can define who is involved, who sees, what is reversible, what the act means, how consent is checked, and how reconnection happens afterward.

The practical companion to this report: From Fantasy to Action: How to Move Non-Monogamy From "Hot Idea" to Something You Can Actually Do

---