In general usage, sadism refers to a tendency to link pleasure with inflicting pain on others or dominating them. Today, however, this single word carries several quite different meanings. Its sense in relation to sexual cruelty, the diagnostic concept in psychiatry, “everyday sadism” in personality psychology, sadism in BDSM, and the everyday Japanese expressions “S” and “do-S” (roughly, “extremely S”) are not all the same thing.
The word “sadism” derives from the name of the eighteenth-century French writer the Marquis de Sade, but Sade himself did not coin it. It had already appeared as a cultural and moral term by the first half of the nineteenth century; at the end of that century Richard von Krafft-Ebing systematized it as a concept of sexology; and in psychoanalysis after Sigmund Freud it was extended to questions of the exercise of power, aggression, drives, and destructiveness. In the current DSM and ICD, it has been reorganized in a way that distinguishes atypical sexual interests as such from mental disorders.
In other words, the question “What is sadism?” cannot be answered with the definition of a single period. This article first sorts out the several meanings in use today, and then traces how Sade’s name branched out into nineteenth-century sexology, psychoanalysis, modern medicine, BDSM, personality psychology, and everyday language.
.jpg)
Contents
- What is sadism?
- Is sadism a mental disorder?
- What is the difference between sadism and masochism?
- Are the “S” of BDSM, sadism, and “do-S” the same thing?
- The origin of the word: why was it formed from Sade’s name?
- How did Krafft-Ebing medicalize sadism?
- How did Freud and psychoanalysis change sadism?
- Sadism as personality: what is everyday sadism?
- Are Sade himself and sadism the same thing?
- Did sadism become a body of “thought”?
- How has sadism been expressed in literature?
- Frequently asked questions
- Summary: sadism is not a word with a single meaning
What is sadism?
The word “sadism” as used today has at least several distinct senses. In general language, it is used in a rather broad sense: “a tendency to take pleasure in making others suffer or in dominating them.” In sexual contexts, on the other hand, it can refer to the linking of sexual arousal with another person’s physical or psychological suffering, humiliation, and the like. That alone, however, does not amount to “Sexual Sadism Disorder” in the sense of modern psychiatry[1].
In personality psychology, there is a field of research that studies, as “everyday sadism,” a tendency to enjoy others’ suffering or cruelty without presupposing sexual arousal. In BDSM, the practice of or preference for enjoying giving pain or stimulation to a consenting partner is sometimes called sadism. And in Japanese, “S” and “do-S” are used as very broad descriptions of personality, meaning things like “mean,” “assertive,” or “someone who likes teasing people.”
So when one encounters the word “sadism,” the first thing to check is which field, and which meaning of sadism, is at issue.
| Usage | Rough meaning | Formal medical diagnosis? |
|---|---|---|
| Sadism in general language | Pleasure in making others suffer or dominating them | No |
| Sexual sadism | An interest in which sexual arousal is linked to another’s suffering, etc. | Not a diagnosis in itself |
| Sexual Sadism Disorder | A psychiatric concept that meets specific diagnostic criteria | Yes |
| Everyday sadism | Personality-trait research on a preference for others’ suffering or cruel behavior | No |
| Sadism in BDSM | Consensual sexual or relational practices and preferences | Not a diagnosis in itself |
| “S” / “do-S” | An everyday Japanese expression describing personality | No |
Without these distinctions, false equations arise, such as “being do-S means having a mental illness,” “being the S in BDSM means having Sexual Sadism Disorder,” or “being mean to people makes one a sadist in the medical sense.”
Is sadism a mental disorder?
The word “sadism” itself is not the name of a disorder. Modern psychiatry distinguishes between a sexual interest as such and cases in which it is diagnosed as a mental disorder.
In DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association clearly distinguished between “paraphilias,” which are atypical sexual interests, and “paraphilic disorders,” in which such interests are diagnosed as mental disorders. The aim was to avoid treating the mere presence of an atypical sexual interest as a mental disorder. This basic distinction carries over into the current DSM-5-TR[1].
“Sexual sadism” and “Sexual Sadism Disorder” are different
For Sexual Sadism Disorder in DSM-5-TR, what matters diagnostically is that, in addition to a pattern of recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person lasting at least six months, the person has acted on these urges with a nonconsenting person, or the fantasies or urges cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning[2].
Limited sexual practices between consenting adults are therefore not synonymous with a diagnosis of Sexual Sadism Disorder. The American Psychiatric Association itself explains that in DSM-5 it revised the classification to distinguish atypical sexual interests from mental disorders, so that consensual atypical behavior would not by itself be labeled a mental disorder. The MSD Manual likewise explains that sexually sadistic behavior engaged in between consenting adults that does not meet the diagnostic criteria is not in itself regarded as a paraphilic disorder[1][2].
How is it treated in ICD-11?
In the World Health Organization’s ICD-11, the old ICD-10 umbrella category “F65.5 Sadomasochism” has not simply been retained. In its place is “Coercive sexual sadism disorder.” Diagnostically, what is at issue there is a sustained, focused pattern of sexual arousal centered on inflicting physical or psychological suffering on a nonconsenting person, together with having acted on those thoughts, fantasies, or urges, or being markedly distressed by them[3].
More importantly, the World Health Organization explicitly excludes consensual sexual sadism and masochism from this diagnostic category. Sadism in consensual BDSM therefore cannot simply be equated with Coercive sexual sadism disorder[3].
ICD-11 also contains “Paraphilic disorder involving solitary behaviour or consenting individuals.” So one cannot oversimplify in the other direction either, by saying that “as long as there is consent, it can never be a clinical issue under any circumstances.” Even with solitary behavior or behavior between consenting individuals, a separate clinical assessment may become relevant where there is marked distress not explained solely by fear of social rejection, or a significant risk of injury or death[3].
In ICD-11, the old ICD-10 “F65.5 Sadomasochism” is also mapped to this category that can cover solitary behavior and behavior between consenting individuals, and “sadomasochism” remains as a deprecated former term. In terms of conceptual history, it is easiest to understand this as the old umbrella category having split into a diagnostic category centered on non-consent and a category that can cover solitary behavior and behavior between consenting individuals[3].
In addition, sexual offending and sadism disorders are not synonymous either. The fact that a nonconsensual sexual offense has been committed does not by itself automatically establish Coercive sexual sadism disorder; the assessment includes factors such as a sustained, focused pattern of sexual arousal.
What is the difference between sadism and masochism?
Historically, sadism and masochism were organized as a pair of opposing concepts: inflicting versus suffering, domination versus submission, active versus passive. The explanation that sadism is the side that inflicts pain on others and masochism the side that receives pain or humiliation is useful for grasping the basic difference.
Looking at the conceptual history as a whole, however, the two cannot be treated as complete opposites. At the end of the nineteenth century Krafft-Ebing defined sadism and masochism clearly as a pair of opposing concepts in sexology, but Freud argued that active and passive sides can coexist within a single person, and that sadism and masochism can transform into one another. The first edition of Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905) already contains a statement that sadistic and masochistic tendencies can coexist in the same person; but because later editions were substantially expanded, any attribution to the first edition requires distinguishing the critically edited 1905 text from the later editions[4].
In 1913, Isidor Sadger published “On the Sado-Masochistic Complex,” a clear example of early psychoanalysis treating the two as a single complex[4].
Later, in his 1967 Présentation de Sacher-Masoch (translated into English as Coldness and Cruelty), Gilles Deleuze criticized the very practice of grouping Sade and Sacher-Masoch together as merely the active and passive sides of a single drive.
The common everyday notion that “every person is either an S or an M” is therefore not a scientific classification that can be derived directly from historical sexology, psychoanalysis, or modern medicine.
Are the “S” of BDSM, sadism, and “do-S” the same thing?
The term BDSM is generally used as a name that brings together several elements: bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism. It is therefore not wrong to say that the “S” in BDSM includes sadism. However, BDSM participants cannot simply be divided into “S” and “M.” BDSM research has pointed out that roles and preferences such as sadist/masochist, dominant/submissive, and top/bottom do not necessarily coincide[5].
For example, a top who gives physical stimulation to a partner is not necessarily dominant in the relationship as a whole. Nor does a person who prefers a dominance–submission relationship necessarily enjoy giving or receiving pain.
In current BDSM research, consent, prior negotiation, setting boundaries, and power exchange are treated as important elements. A 2019 systematic review likewise examines BDSM not as mere “acts of cruelty” but as a multidimensional phenomenon involving sexual preference, personality, relationships, pain and reward, roles, and more[5].
This does not mean that “violations of consent never happen in BDSM.” But at the very least, sadism in consensual BDSM cannot be equated with sexual sadism in the medical or forensic sense, which targets nonconsenting people.
The “S” and “do-S” used in everyday Japanese conversation are not medical terms either. They are sometimes used as very broad descriptions of personality, such as “mean,” “assertive,” “teasing,” or “domineering,” and need to be distinguished from the diagnostic concepts of the DSM and ICD, from everyday sadism in personality psychology, and from roles in BDSM.
As for when the Japanese expression “do-S” came into being, the background research for this article did not include a corpus-based search for its first occurrence, so the question of its date of origin is not addressed here.
The origin of the word: why was it formed from Sade’s name?
“Sadism” derives from the name of the French writer Sade. What matters, however, is that Sade himself did not create the word.
Sade died in 1814. An important early source that can be confirmed is the eighth edition of Pierre-Claude-Victoire Boiste’s Dictionnaire universel de la langue française. Boiste himself died in 1824; this eighth edition was published in 1834 as a revision by Charles Nodier. Materials from the French national lexical resource center (CNRTL/TLFi) and the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) also treat sadisme in the 1834 edition as an important early dictionary entry[6].
There, unlike today’s medical diagnosis, the word was treated as carrying strong moral and social meanings, such as a monstrous aberration of debauchery or an antisocial “system.” The sadisme of 1834 is therefore not modern Sexual Sadism Disorder. The personal name Sade first turned into a cultural sign symbolizing “monstrous debauchery,” “cruelty,” and “antisociality.”
Sadique was also used as a term of literary criticism before medicalization. In a review of Gustave Flaubert’s Salammbô dated December 15, 1862, Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve used the expression Une pointe d’imagination sadique (“a touch of sadistic imagination”) about its depictions of cruelty. This review of Salammbô appeared in Le Constitutionnel on December 8, 15, and 22, 1862, and was later collected in volume 4 of Nouveaux Lundis[6].
To summarize the conceptual history in broad strokes, then: a moral and cultural sadisme emerged from the personal name Sade, it was also used as a term of literary criticism, and at the end of the nineteenth century it was converted into a technical term of sexology.
Note that although Boiste’s 1834 dictionary is an important early dictionary example, it cannot be asserted to be “the very first moment in human history that the word sadisme was used.” It is not proof of first occurrence across all usage, including newspapers, private letters, pamphlets, and so on.
How did Krafft-Ebing medicalize sadism?
At the end of the nineteenth century, sadism was incorporated by Krafft-Ebing into the specialized categories of sexology and psychiatry.
The first edition of Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis was published in 1886. It is not accurate, however, to say that “in 1886 Krafft-Ebing invented the word sadism from scratch.” The French word sadisme already existed before then.
The important milestone in conceptual history is the 1890 Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis (New Research in the Field of Psychopathia Sexualis). In this work, Sadismus, derived from the French sadisme, and Masochismus, derived from the name of Sacher-Masoch, were introduced as a paired set of sexological terms.[7]
In Krafft-Ebing, sadism was organized as domination of others, cruel acts, and the linking of pain with sexual satisfaction, and was paired as a concept with masochism. This theory, however, strongly reflects the sexual norms peculiar to the nineteenth century: normal versus perverse, male versus female, active versus passive. Krafft-Ebing’s classification therefore cannot be read as it stands as a definition in modern medicine.
Krafft-Ebing did not diagnose Sade himself
Here, too, the person and the concept must be kept apart. Sade died in 1814, before Krafft-Ebing was born. Naturally, Krafft-Ebing did not examine Sade and diagnose him with “sadism.”
More precisely, it should be understood that the name “Sade,” which had already become a cultural symbol of cruelty and debauchery, was used as the name of a medical category established later.
How did Freud and psychoanalysis change sadism?
Whereas Krafft-Ebing systematized sadism as a sexological “perversion,” Freud broadened it into questions of the sexual drive more generally, aggression, the exercise of power, and active versus passive.
Freud’s account of sadism, however, did not remain fixed as a single theory. His thinking changed across 1905, 1915, 1920, and 1924[4].
1905: continuity with the ordinary sexual drive
In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, sadism and masochism are discussed within the theory of perversions, yet Freud attempts to trace the roots of sadism through their continuity with an aggressive, overpowering component contained in the ordinary sexual drive. Rather than placing an absolute wall between abnormal and normal sexuality, Freud held that so-called perverse elements can be partly present in ordinary sexual life as well.
The 1905 first edition already contains words corresponding to “aggression” and “overpowering,” as well as sadistic and masochistic tendencies, and a statement that both tendencies can coexist in the same person can also be confirmed. However, because the English translations readily available on the web mix in later additions, any claim limited to a specific edition, such as “present in the 1905 first edition,” must be based on a critical edition that reconstructs the first edition.[4]
1915: violence, the exercise of power, and overpowering
In “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes” (1915), the initial form of sadism is placed on the side of violence and the exercise of power against others. Here Freud does not make the infliction of pain itself the original aim of the drive[4].
From there he presented a model in which masochism arises when the object is turned back onto the self and activity is reversed into passivity. At this stage, what matters is not simply a “desire to inflict pain” but overpowering others and exercising power.
1920–1924: the death drive changes the theory
Once the death drive was introduced in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), the earlier explanation that “masochism is sadism turned back onto oneself” was no longer sufficient. The possibility of a primary masochism came to the fore, and the old model began to be revised.
In “The Economic Problem of Masochism” (1924), a primary, erotogenic masochism is acknowledged, and sadism is positioned as the case in which part of the destructive drive is directed outward and placed in the service of the sexual function[4].
In short, Freud’s account of sadism expanded from an explanation of “a sexual perversion that makes others suffer” into a theory of aggression, overpowering, the exercise of power, the redirection of drives, and destructiveness, and the genetic position of sadism itself shifted along the way.
Abraham and Klein
After Freud, Karl Abraham and Melanie Klein broadened the meaning further.
The theory of an “anal-sadistic stage” was not created by Abraham from scratch: Freud’s 1913 discussion of the anal-sadistic organization came first, and in 1924 Abraham further subdivided the oral and anal stages, linking them to the destruction, retention, possession, and control of objects.
Klein developed sadism further into questions of infantile phantasy, destructiveness, persecutory anxiety, and early object relations. By this stage, “sadism” in the psychoanalytic sense has moved quite far from a word meaning only a particular sexual preference in adults.
The path from this psychoanalytic work to twentieth-century thought is covered in detail in a separate article, “What Is the Thought of Sadism?”
Sadism as personality: what is everyday sadism?
In contemporary psychology, separate from Sexual Sadism Disorder, there is a field of research on what is called everyday sadism or “trait sadism.”
What is at issue here is not necessarily sexual arousal. This research studies, as personality traits, tendencies such as enjoying others’ suffering, finding cruel behavior itself rewarding, and expending effort in order to hurt others[8].
In 2009, Hugues Chabrol and colleagues examined four “dark personality traits,” adding sadistic personality traits to narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. In 2011, Aisling O’Meara and colleagues examined the psychometric properties of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale, seeking to measure sadistic tendencies as a continuous personality trait. In 2013, Erin E. Buckels, Daniel N. Jones, and Delroy L. Paulhus used experimental tasks to examine everyday sadism and reported its association with behavior in which people expend effort for an opportunity to hurt others[8].
This research later came to be widely discussed under the name “Dark Tetrad.” However, research is still ongoing on how far sadism is a personality trait independent of psychopathy, aggression, antagonism, and so on. So one cannot simply diagnose that “a person who is mean to others = scientifically a person with a sadist personality.”
Everyday sadism is not a formal diagnosis in the DSM or ICD either. The everyday phrase “sadistic personality” should not be translated directly into a medical personality diagnosis.
Are Sade himself and sadism the same thing?
No, they are not.
It is a fact that the word sadism was formed from Sade’s name, but that does not mean the “sadism” of later sexology, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry explains the historical figure Sade himself.
At a minimum, one needs to distinguish Sade as a historical figure, the libertines who appear in Sade’s literary works, the sadisme that took shape in the nineteenth century, Krafft-Ebing’s sadism, the psychoanalytic concepts after Freud, and modern Sexual Sadism Disorder.
Moreover, although Sade’s novels depict torture, murder, sexual cruelty, domination, and the like in great quantity, one cannot retroactively diagnose the author himself by modern diagnostic criteria on the basis of acts depicted in literary works. One should also avoid equating the ideas and sexual acts of characters directly with the author’s own psychological state.
Sade’s life is covered in detail in “Who Was Sade?”, his thought in “What Is Sade’s Thought?”, and his literary form in “What Is Sade’s Literature?”
Did sadism become a body of “thought”?
Strictly speaking, no single system of thought called “sadism” ever took shape. In the twentieth century, however, the writer Sade and the concept of sadism spread beyond medicine and were reread as philosophical problems for thinking about freedom, the other, negation, death, sovereignty, law, desire, and jouissance.
Here it is better to distinguish two histories. What runs through Krafft-Ebing, Freud, Abraham, and Klein is the intellectual history of the concept of sadism itself. What comes to the fore in French thought from the 1940s onward, by contrast, is mainly the intellectual history of the reception of Sade as a writer and of his works.
Simone de Beauvoir read Sade in terms of the conflict between embodied freedom and the freedom of others, while Georges Bataille connected him to questions of transgression, eroticism, death, and sovereignty. Maurice Blanchot took up reason, apathy, negation, and the movement of language, and Jacques Lacan, in “Kant with Sade,” discussed the relation between the moral law and the command to jouissance. Deleuze went further and criticized the very tradition of combining sadism and masochism into a single composite concept.
What is at stake here is no longer just the psychology of “people who get aroused by hurting others.” This intellectual history is covered in detail in the companion article “What Is the Thought of Sadism?”
How has sadism been expressed in literature?
Not all “cruel literature” or “violent novels” can be called sadistic literature.
When considering sadism in literature, one needs to separate at least literature that directly receives Sade himself or his works, literature whose theme is sexual cruelty or domination, and literature that has forms characteristic of Sade, such as repetition, classification, the arrangement of bodies, and institutionalization.
In other words, “Sadean literature” and “literature of cruelty” are not necessarily the same. There is literature that depicts cruelty and domination without explicitly inheriting Sade’s name or works, and conversely, a work may refer to Sade directly while its center is not “enjoying the suffering of others.”
For this reason, literary history needs not simply to measure a work’s cruelty but to separate direct reception, quotation within works, comparisons made in the history of criticism, theme, and literary form. This is also covered in more detail in a separate article, “What Is the Literature of Sadism?”
Frequently asked questions
Q. Is sadism innate?
Current research does not allow one to assert that “sadism is innately determined by a single genetic factor.” Historically, Freud, Abraham, Klein, and others put forward developmental theories, but these are not proofs of a single cause by modern genetics or neuroscience. Several distinct questions, including sexual interests, personality traits, and social experience, need to be considered separately.
Q. Are sadism and psychopathy the same?
No. Associations and overlaps between everyday sadism and psychopathy have been studied in personality psychology, but they are not synonyms. It is also best not to confuse the everyday word “psychopath” with the research concept.
Q. Can someone have both sadism and masochism?
Historically, as early as Freud it was argued that sadistic and masochistic sides can both exist within one person. Understanding “S and M” as a strict either/or is too simple.
Q. Is the S in BDSM a sadist?
People who enjoy sadism in BDSM sometimes call themselves sadists. However, sadist, dominant, and top are not necessarily synonymous, and enjoying sadism in BDSM does not in itself imply a diagnosis of Sexual Sadism Disorder.
Q. Is “do-S” sadism in the medical sense?
No. “Do-S” is not a medical diagnosis but an everyday Japanese expression.
Q. Was Sade himself really a sadist?
That Sade’s name became the source of the later word sadisme is a separate matter from diagnosing the historical figure Sade with present-day Sexual Sadism Disorder. A retroactive diagnosis of the latter kind cannot be made.
Summary: sadism is not a word with a single meaning
The word “sadism” has not carried a single, unchanged meaning from Sade himself to the present.
After Sade’s death, a cultural and moral nineteenth-century sadisme emerged from his name, and in 1890 Krafft-Ebing introduced sadism and masochism as a paired set of sexological terms. From there Freud broadened the question to aggression, overpowering, the exercise of power, active versus passive, and the redirection of drives, and later psychoanalysis and philosophy came to discuss everything from destructiveness and the other to law, desire, and jouissance.
Modern psychiatry, meanwhile, has clearly moved toward distinguishing sexual interests as such from mental disorders. In ICD-11, consensual sexual sadism and masochism are explicitly excluded from Coercive sexual sadism disorder. Personality psychology has a separate research field of everyday sadism, and sadism in BDSM and the everyday Japanese words “S” and “do-S” each belong to different contexts as well.
So when thinking about “what sadism is,” the most important thing is not to force everything into a single definition. It is to distinguish who is speaking of “sadism,” when, in which field, and in which sense.
About the research for this article
This article does not treat “sadism” as a single concept running in a straight line from the historical figure Sade to the present. It distinguishes the historical figure Sade, Sade’s literature, the nineteenth-century cultural term, sexology after Krafft-Ebing, psychoanalysis after Freud, modern psychiatry, everyday sadism, BDSM, and everyday Japanese usage.
On the origin of the word, the eighth edition of Boiste’s dictionary (1834, revised by Nodier) is treated as an important early dictionary entry, and is not asserted to be “the first use in the world.” As a usage predating medicalization, we also confirmed imagination sadique in Sainte-Beuve’s 1862 review of Flaubert’s Salammbô.
For Krafft-Ebing, we separated the 1886 first edition of Psychopathia Sexualis from the 1890 Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis. The introduction of sadism and masochism as a paired set of sexological terms is placed in 1890, and we do not say that he “invented the word sadism in 1886.”
For Freud, we distinguished the 1905 first edition from later expanded editions. We did not establish the wording of the 1905 first edition solely on the basis of English translations of later editions available on the web, and for first-edition attribution we gave priority to critical-edition scholarship on the 1905 text. For 1915, rather than uniformly rendering Freud’s German Machtbetätigung as “domination,” we rendered it as “the exercise of power,” and distinguished Überwältigung as “overpowering/subjugation” and Bemächtigung as “mastery” (taking hold).
For modern medicine, we distinguished Sexual Sadism Disorder in DSM-5-TR from Coercive sexual sadism disorder in WHO’s ICD-11. While confirming that WHO explicitly excludes consensual sexual sadism and masochism from the diagnostic category, we also took into account the existence of a separate category that can cover solitary behavior and behavior between consenting individuals, and so avoided the opposite oversimplification that “with consent, no practice could ever be a medical issue.”
Notes
Some sources below are in Japanese; their original titles are given with English translations in brackets.
- In DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association distinguished
paraphilia, an atypical sexual interest, fromparaphilic disorderas a mental disorder. The Association states that “Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder,” and lists Sexual Sadism Disorder as one of the paraphilic disorders. American Psychiatric Association, “Paraphilic Disorders”. DSM-5-TR was published in 2022. APA, “About DSM-5-TR” - The diagnostic criteria for Sexual Sadism Disorder are based on American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), 2022, “Sexual Sadism Disorder.” As a supplementary source, the MSD Manual Professional Edition summarizes the main conditions as recurrent, intense sexual arousal from the physical or psychological suffering of another person, persistence for at least six months, and either acting on the urges with a nonconsenting person or clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning. MSDマニュアル「性的サディズム症」 [MSD Manual, “Sexual Sadism Disorder,” Japanese edition]
- In WHO’s ICD-11 CDDR (2024),
6D33 Coercive sexual sadism disorderand6D36 Paraphilic disorder involving solitary behaviour or consenting individualsare placed under paraphilic disorders. 6D33 requires a sustained, focused pattern of sexual arousal centered on the physical or psychological suffering of a nonconsenting person, together with having acted on those thoughts, fantasies, or urges, or being markedly distressed by them, and explicitly excludes consensual sexual sadism and masochism. The old ICD-10F65.5 Sadomasochismis also mapped in ICD-11 to the 6D36 side, andsadomasochism (deprecated)remains as a synonym. WHO, Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders, 2024 - Freud’s account of sadism and masochism changes over time. To confirm attributions to the 1905 first edition of Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, priority is given to the first-edition critical scholarship by Philippe Van Haute, Herman Westerink, and others, rather than relying only on English translations on the web that include later additions. In “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes” (1915),
Gewalttätigkeit(violence) andMachtbetätigung(exercise of power) are key terms, while the 1905Überwältigungis rendered as overpowering/subjugation andBemächtigungas mastery. The death drive is introduced in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), and in “The Economic Problem of Masochism” (1924) the theory is reorganized toward acknowledging a primary, erotogenic masochism. On Sadger, see Isidor Sadger, “Über den sado-masochistischen Komplex,” Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen, vol. 5, 1913. - The 2019 systematic review by De Neef et al. frames BDSM as a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism, and examines interest in and practice of BDSM from biological, psychological, and social perspectives. De Neef et al., “Bondage-Discipline, Dominance-Submission and Sadomasochism (BDSM) From an Integrative Biopsychosocial Perspective”
- Pierre-Claude-Victoire Boiste, Dictionnaire universel de la langue française, 8th ed., revised by Charles Nodier, 1834. An important early dictionary example of
sadisme. See also the BnF’s overview of Sade and the TLFi. It is not, however, treated as the absolute first occurrence. BnF, “Le Marquis de Sade : de l’œuvre cachée à l’écrivain surexposé”. Onsadiquebefore medicalization: Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve, “Salammbô par M. Gustave Flaubert,” Le Constitutionnel, December 8, 15, and 22, 1862, later collected in Nouveaux Lundis, vol. IV.Une pointe d’imagination sadiquecan be confirmed in the December 15 installment. OBVIL/Huma-Num, “Nouveaux Lundis, Tome IV” - The first edition of Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis appeared in 1886. The introduction of sadism and masochism as a paired set of sexological terms is placed in the 1890 Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis. The pre-existing French
sadismeis distinguished from the introduction ofSadismusin German sexology. See also Harry Oosterhuis, “Sexual Modernity in the Works of Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Albert Moll.” Cambridge Core - Hugues Chabrol et al. (2009) examined narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadistic personality traits in young people. O’Meara, Davies & Hammond (2011) examined the psychometric properties of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS), and Buckels, Jones & Paulhus (2013) examined everyday sadism experimentally. O’Meara et al., “The psychometric properties and utility of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale” / Buckels, Jones & Paulhus, “Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism”
References and main sources
- American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). 2022.
- American Psychiatric Association. “Paraphilic Disorders.” APA
- World Health Organization. Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. 2024. WHO
- Pierre-Claude-Victoire Boiste. Dictionnaire universel de la langue française, 8th ed., revised by Charles Nodier, 1834.
- Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve. “Salammbô par M. Gustave Flaubert.” Le Constitutionnel, December 8, 15, and 22, 1862; later in Nouveaux Lundis, vol. IV.
- Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Psychopathia Sexualis. 1st ed., 1886.
- Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis. Stuttgart: Enke, 1890.
- Isidor Sadger. “Über den sado-masochistischen Komplex.” Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen, vol. 5, 1913.
- Sigmund Freud. Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie. 1905; expanded in later editions.
- Sigmund Freud. “Triebe und Triebschicksale.” 1915.
- Sigmund Freud. Jenseits des Lustprinzips. 1920.
- Sigmund Freud. “Das ökonomische Problem des Masochismus.” 1924.
- Karl Abraham. “A Short Study of the Development of the Libido, Viewed in the Light of Mental Disorders.” 1924.
- Melanie Klein. The Psycho-Analysis of Children. 1932.
- Aisling O’Meara, Jason Davies, Sean Hammond. “The psychometric properties and utility of the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale (SSIS).” Psychological Assessment 23(2), 2011, 523–531.
- Erin E. Buckels, Daniel N. Jones, Delroy L. Paulhus. “Behavioral Confirmation of Everyday Sadism.” Psychological Science 24(11), 2013, 2201–2209.
- Nele De Neef, Violette Coppens, Wim Huys, Manuel Morrens. “Bondage-Discipline, Dominance-Submission and Sadomasochism (BDSM) From an Integrative Biopsychosocial Perspective: A Systematic Review.” Sexual Medicine 7(2), 2019, 129–144.
Translated from the Japanese original, “サディズムとは？｜意味・語源・サドとの関係、S・M・BDSM・現代医学まで解説”. Quotations from Japanese sources are our own translations.