That BDSM is not violence is something we probably don’t need to explain to you if you’ve found your way here. At Deviance, we say it all the time. And yet, many people still judge something they don’t actually understand. Even though most of them have had fantasies in that direction themselves or maybe even tried it out. But more on that – and the numbers behind it – later.
So if you ever find yourself in a discussion and run out of arguments, our friends at KAPA have done an excellent job in this article of explaining why it’s so important to draw a clear line between BDSM and violence, and where exactly that line lies. The article is a guest contribution, originally published on kapa-expert.com and kindly shared with Deviance.
Beyond the surface – The need for a clear demarcation
The conflation of consensual BDSM with sexual violence is more than just a semantic misunderstanding; it’s a dangerous confusion that has profound and damaging consequences. It feeds stigma, provides cover for perpetrators who misuse kink language, and causes real harm to consenting individuals. The urgency of a clear, psychologically sound distinction is therefore not an academic exercise, but a necessity for public health and safety.
The data paints a grim picture of the reality for kink practitioners. Nearly 40 percent of them report experiences of discrimination in healthcare, ranging from insults to substandard treatment. Fearing precisely this stigma, over 20 percent choose to conceal their activities from medical or therapeutic staff, even when they have specific BDSM-related concerns they wish to discuss. This mistrust is a significant predictor of concealing injuries, as practitioners fear being met with incomprehension and receiving inadequate care.
This creates a vicious cycle of stigma, violence, and silence. Society’s equation of BDSM with abuse leads to fear and stigma. This fear, in turn, enforces a silence that makes it difficult for practitioners to seek support or report genuine abuse. At the same time, this silence makes it easier for perpetrators to operate under the guise of “kink” without being held accountable by an informed community or professionals. This creates a dangerous environment in which the voices of real victims are ignored.
This article therefore does not serve as a defense of BDSM, but rather as a psychological enlightenment. It aims to provide the tools for unequivocal differentiation. This occurs against the backdrop of a paradigm shift in psychology itself: away from the pathologization of differences toward an affirmative stance focused on consent, well-being, and sexual self-determination. The following analysis is a practical application of this modern, affirmative principle.
The unshakable foundation: The psychology of consensus
The absolute and non-negotiable dividing line between BDSM and sexual violence is consent. The psychological experience of consent in a BDSM dynamic stands in stark contrast to its complete absence in a violent assault.
Dr. Martin Gostentschnig
Sexual violence is defined as any sexual act performed against a person’s will or when that person is unable to consent or refuse (e.g., while unconscious). The term “sexualized” is used deliberately to emphasize that sexuality is being instrumentalized as a weapon or used for an act of violence. The core motivation is not shared desire, but the exercise of power, humiliation, and submission. It’s about belittling and dominating another person.
In sharp contrast, BDSM is based on a highly developed and active culture of consent. This is not a matter of passive tolerance, but rather an enthusiastic, negotiated, ongoing, and revocable process. Consent is the foundation of any healthy BDSM practice, as enshrined in ethical models such as SSC (Safe, Sane, Consensual) or RACK (Risk-Aware Consensual Kink). The goal is a shared, intense experience, not the violation of boundaries.
This distinction reveals a fundamental difference in the perception of the other person. In a violent context, consent is often viewed as a one-time “yes” that must be obtained – often through coercion or manipulation – after which the victim’s agency is declared irrelevant. It is a transactional event. In BDSM, however, consent is a continuous, dynamic process. It is constantly monitored through verbal and nonverbal cues, pre-negotiated boundaries, and safewords. It must be present at every moment of the interaction. Psychologically speaking, this is the difference between objectification, in which the other person is degraded to an object, and intersubjectivity, in which the other person remains a subject whose ongoing consent and well-being are central to the experience itself.
Power, Control, and Motivation: Consensual Play vs. Violent Assault
The psychological motivations behind the use of power in both contexts couldn’t be more different. In BDSM, power is a negotiated gift; in violence, it’s a stolen right.
In a BDSM dynamic, power imbalances are explicitly negotiated, have clear boundaries, and are reversible. The “lower” or submissive partner ultimately retains absolute control through the safe word. Their consent forms the framework that enables the “upper” or dominant partner to exercise power. The goal is the shared exploration of fantasies and the enhancement of pleasure on both sides. In sexualized violence, the goal is one-sided, non-consensual control and the breaking of the other party’s will. The perpetrator’s gratification stems directly from the victim’s powerlessness and suffering.
Security expert Gavin DeBecker formulated an ultimate psychological litmus test that perfectly describes this gap:
“No is a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you.”
A BDSM practitioner relies on hearing and respecting a “no” (or a safe word) to ensure the consensual framework remains intact. The ability to stop at any time is proof of the play‘s safety. For an abuser, however, a “no” is a challenge to their control, something to be overcome, ignored, or punished. Accepting the “no” would defeat the entire purpose of their actions.
This reveals the paradox of power in BDSM. Superficially, it appears to be about one person having power over another. Upon closer analysis, however, it becomes clear that the person in the seemingly “powerless” role (the submissive) confers the power and defines their boundaries. By setting boundaries and possessing the safe word, they are the final authority in the scene. This is not a true power imbalance in the abusive sense, but rather a form of deep trust and mutual connection. The submissive trusts the dominant to respect the boundaries, and the dominant trusts the submissive to honestly communicate their boundaries. This mutual trust is the exact opposite of the dynamic in sexual violence, which is characterized by a profound breach of trust.
Sadism in Focus: The Clinical Distinction Between Inclining and Pericular Sadism
To resolve the confusion between BDSM and violence, a precise clinical distinction of the term “sadism” is essential. In her thesis, criminal psychologist Lydia Benecke summarizes the crucial distinction made by psychologist Peter Fiedler (2004), who differentiates between inclinative sexual sadism , as practiced in BDSM, and periculum sexual sadism (from the Latin periculum – danger), which is associated with violent crimes. This distinction is crucial because it distinguishes consensual inclination from forensically relevant, pathological behavior.
Inclusive (consensual) sexual sadism
This is characterized by the fact that sadistic practices are performed exclusively with the consent of the partner and lead neither to subjective suffering nor to social impairment. Fiedler classifies this not as a paraphilia, but as a “harmless sexual-sadistic predilection.” The motivation is not brute force, but rather the psychological experience of devotion, expressed through dominance and submission. The Sadist‘s sexual arousal is inextricably linked to the voluntary and pleasurable participation of his partner. The positive experience of his partner is an integral part of his own arousal.
Pericular (dangerous) sexual sadism
Here, the perpetrator’s sexual arousal is specifically triggered by the non-consensual suffering, fear, and submission of a victim. The acts are driven by inner compulsions; those affected lose self-control and violate their victims’ sexual autonomy, which can lead to serious crimes. This form of sadism is classified in the current WHO diagnostic manual, the ICD-11, as Coercive Sexual Sadism Disorder (Code 6D33). This diagnosis refers exclusively to arousal from inflicting suffering on a non-consenting person. Consensual BDSM is explicitly excluded.
The core psychological component that separates these two forms is the way they deal with control, reality, and intimacy. While inclinative sadism emphasizes interpersonal intimacy and trust, pericular sadism replaces intimacy with power and control, as proximity often triggers fears and feelings of threat in the perpetrators.
The Architecture of Security: Ethical Frameworks in BDSM
The BDSM community is not a rule-free space, but a subculture that has proactively and reflectively developed its own ethical systems to maximize safety and consent. This is fundamentally at odds with the nature of violence, which seeks to destroy safety. An analysis of these ethical frameworks, as described in the article “BDSM Compass” on kapa-expert.com makes this clear.
Depathologization and reality: What science says
The myths that equate BDSM with pathology are being clearly refuted by scientific evidence. The clinical and diagnostic world is finally beginning to acknowledge the reality.
First, regarding prevalence: BDSM is not a marginal deviation. Recent research shows that BDSM interests are widespread. Approximately 65 to 69 percent of the general population report having or having had BDSM fantasies, and a remarkable 46.8 percent report having participated in a kink-related activity. These figures normalize BDSM as a significant part of the spectrum of human sexuality.(1)
The crucial point for psychological classification, however, is mental health. Studies clearly demonstrate that BDSM practitioners do not exhibit higher levels of psychopathology compared to the general population. The assumption that kink is a symptom of mental illness has been empirically refuted. Rather, BDSM practitioners tend to have higher scores in the trait “sensation seeking” (the search for novel stimuli) and sometimes use BDSM as an effective coping mechanism for stress and emotions.(2)
Perhaps the most significant development is the official depathologization by the World Health Organization. In the new diagnostic manual ICD-11, the diagnosis of “sadomasochism” as a disorder has been completely removed. It has been replaced, as already mentioned, by “compulsive sexual sadism disorder,” which refers exclusively to non-consensual acts. This is a monumental step that officially separates consensual practice from pathology.
Despite this clear scientific and diagnostic situation, a critical gap exists between knowledge and practice. While science is depathologizing BDSM, 40 percent of practitioners continue to experience discrimination from the very professionals who should be following this science. The “echo of old classifications” is often louder than the new findings. This circumstance underscores the urgent need for Kink-Aware Professionals (KAPA) and educational work, such as this article attempts to provide, to close this gap and provide practitioners with the knowledge to advocate for themselves.
Five Red Flags: Warning Signs of Sexualized Violence in the Kink Context
The synthesis of psychological principles makes it possible to define concrete warning signs that help distinguish a dangerous person from a consensual partner. These five red flags indicate that this is not consensual play, but a potential assault.
- Ignoring or negotiating “no” and safewords. This is the biggest and most obvious red flag. It ties in directly with Gavin DeBecker’s quote. A partner who questions a safeword or a clear “no,” ignores it, argues about it, or dismisses it as part of the game isn’t playing. They’re testing boundaries to gain control. In a healthy dynamic, a safeword leads to an immediate and unconditional cessation of the action.
- Pressure and isolation instead of open communication. A perpetrator often tries to isolate their victim to increase control. If a partner discourages discussing shared practices with friends or the community, or pressures the partner to do things they aren’t ready for, that’s a warning sign. Healthy BDSM promotes education, sharing, and transparent negotiations. Kink should never be used as an excuse to cut someone off from their social support system.
- Focusing on one’s own needs while disregarding the partner’s experience. This indicates the empathic deficit characteristic of peri-sodical sadism. A truly dominant partner is hyper-attentive to the state of their submissive counterpart. A person who reacts with indifference, annoyance, or anger to their partner’s reactions (e.g., pain, fear) instead of being caring is not interested in a shared experience, but only in their own satisfaction.
- Lack of or ridicule of aftercare and emotional nurturing. Aftercare is a cornerstone of modern, ethical BDSM practices, as enshrined in the 4Cs model. It is the process of shared emotional regulation following an intense scene. Someone who dismisses aftercare as unnecessary, ridicules it, or refuses it demonstrates a lack of concern for their partner’s emotional well-being. This is a clear sign of an exploitative rather than a caring, consensual dynamic.
- Blame reversal and the claim that boundary violations are “part of the game.” This is a classic tactic of abuse. A genuine boundary violation in BDSM is treated as a serious mistake requiring immediate termination, an apology, and open discussion. An abuser, on the other hand, will reframe their boundary violation as the victim’s fault (“You couldn’t handle it,” “You’re too sensitive”) or as an intentional part of the experience to deflect responsibility. This runs counter to the principles of personal responsibility and risk awareness, which are central to models like RACK and PRICK.
About the author: Dr. Martin Gostentschnig is a founding member and vice president of KAPA. He has been working as a Kink Aware Professional in Austria since 2008. In this role, he actively promotes greater awareness, tolerance, and openness toward alternative sexual orientations and relationship models. Learn more about KAPA, their work, and the partnership with Deviance here.
