New Scale Measures Consensual Sexual Sadism Without Labeling It as Pathology

By Mr. Yang

A new study published in Psychological Assessment has introduced a tool that could shift how researchers understand sexual sadism. The Index of Consensual Sexual Sadism (ICSS) was developed to measure sadistic sexual interests that take place in consensual contexts—without conflating them with criminal behavior or psychological disorders. The study suggests that consensual sexual sadism is distinct from everyday sadism and may not be inherently harmful.

Historically, most tools used to assess sadism have focused on clinical or forensic populations, where sadistic behaviors are often nonconsensual and harmful. This approach has made it difficult to study sadistic interests in the general population, especially when those interests are consensual and do not cause distress. It also risks pathologizing people with alternative but healthy sexual preferences.

“We wanted to develop a measure that gives us a more accurate understanding of consensual sadistic tendencies,” said study author Dr. Charlotte Kinrade, assistant professor of psychology at Kennesaw State University. “Sexual sadism is often misunderstood because it’s lumped together with nonconsensual behaviors, which doesn’t reflect the experiences of many people.”

To validate the ICSS, Kinrade and her team surveyed 1,391 participants, including undergraduate students and a general adult sample. Participants rated their agreement with 18 items, which were later refined to nine core statements that reflected both direct sadistic behavior and indirect involvement through fantasies or media consumption—all within clearly consensual scenarios. For example, items included statements like “I fantasize about strangling or suffocating my partner” or “I enjoy having rough or violent sex with my partner.”

The final version of the ICSS showed strong reliability and was consistent across gender, age, and sample type. It also correlated strongly with the frequency of sadistic sexual fantasies, suggesting it effectively captures the intended construct. Importantly, the ICSS results were distinct from those of general or “everyday” sadism scales, which are more closely linked to antisocial traits like psychopathy, cruelty, or aggression.

Although there was some overlap, everyday sadism showed stronger connections to antagonistic personality traits, while consensual sexual sadism did not. In fact, ICSS scores had a slight positive link with openness to experience and were only weakly related to social desirability bias—suggesting participants answered honestly and that the topic, while sensitive, can be explored with appropriate tools.

“This shows that consensual sexual sadism is a valid and separate construct,” Kinrade explained. “It shouldn’t automatically be considered pathological or dangerous just because it involves elements of dominance or pain.”

Interestingly, the study found a small negative correlation between ICSS scores and romantic relationship satisfaction. This doesn’t suggest causality, but it raises questions about how these preferences may interact with relational dynamics. “It could be that these preferences influence relationship satisfaction, or that individuals with lower satisfaction are more likely to explore such interests,” Kinrade noted. “Future research should look at both partners’ perspectives.”

The researchers also acknowledged limitations. Consensual sexual sadism appeared relatively rare in their sample—only about 3.7% of participants scored above the midpoint on the ICSS. This limits the ability to explore stronger correlations or differences. The authors recommend future studies include samples from communities where consensual sadism is more common, such as BDSM practitioners, to get a clearer picture of how these tendencies manifest and impact individuals’ lives.

Another limitation is that the ICSS doesn’t assess potential distress or impairment. While it focuses on non-pathological expression, the impact of sadistic interests on mental health or relationships is still worth exploring—particularly in clinical contexts.

Kinrade and her team hope to use the ICSS in future work to better distinguish consensual sexual sadism from more harmful forms of sadism. “Understanding how and when sadistic behaviors are healthy versus problematic is crucial,” she said. “This tool gives us a way to study that nuance without making assumptions.”

This study marks a step forward in normalizing and scientifically exploring sexual preferences that have long been misunderstood. As researchers continue to break down the spectrum of sexual behavior, tools like the ICSS could help reshape how we understand desire, consent, and psychological well-being in the sexual domain.