Wignall et al's “The Kink Orientation Scale: Developing and Validating a Measure of Kink Desire, Practice, and Identity” (2024)
Wignall (2022, p. 39) defined kink as: “A spectrum of sexual or erotic activities outside of normative versions of sex, undertaken for sensory, emotional, or psychological pleasure. It tends to include: the exchange of power, or performance of this; the infliction or receiving of pain; the wearing of gear; and/or the fetishization of body parts and/or objects. Kink can be practiced individually or in groups, and it can be organized into communities and subcultures. It is consensual, with a shared understanding that the activities are kinky.”
There is increasing participation in kink cultures among the general population, and these cultures have diversified in terms of interest, dynamics, and location (Boyd-Rogers et al., 2022; Walker & Kuperberg, 2022). Yet despite this, no validated instruments measure kink desire and practice, which may be one reason why the study of kink is marginalized in psychology and sexology.
[W]e created the Kink Orientation Scale (KOS), an 18-item scale that explores different facets, with scores ranging from 18 to 90, with a higher score indicative of a higher engagement with kink.
Estimates on the prevalence of kink in the general population show a substantial proportion have either engaged in or fantasized about the practice. Estimates for having ever engaged in kink is between 20–30% of people (Brown et al., 2020; Herbenick et al., 2017), or as high as 46.8% in a representative sample of the Belgian population (Holvoet et al., 2017). There are also clear differences in engagement when considering sexual orientation, with a Finnish study of 8,137 participants finding non-heterosexual participants displaying 83% more participation in kink than heterosexual participants (Paarnio et al., 2023). Estimates for the prevalence of kink participation in the past 12 months (at the time people were asked) range from 1.8% for sexually active Australians (Richters et al., 2008) to 6.6% of festival attendees in England (McCormack et al., 2022). The prevalence of kink fantasies is considerably higher: a systematic scoping review of kink prevalence found that kink (or BDSM in the study) related fantasies were common, ranging between 40–70% of adults (Brown et al., 2020).
Despite such prevalence, research on sexual minority populations has a troubled history, often adopting a pathological approach that located the problem of different sexualities or practices in the individual rather than in a society that was intolerant of difference (see Greenberg, 1990; Herek, 2004). Research on kink has followed this same trajectory, with early perspectives on kink pathologizing such behaviors by its inclusion in the DSM (Krueger, 2010a, 2010b) and through linking interests in kink with anti-social and criminal activities (see Foulkes, 2019). This perspective has been critiqued, with recent quantitative research offering new insights into kink (e.g., Brown et al., 2020; De Neef et al., 2019; Schuerwegen et al., 2021), while rich ethnographic and qualitative data of kink cultures document the norms and practices of these cultures. In these ways, kink practitioners and social researchers emphasize the social aspects and meanings attached to kink practices without stigmatizing or pathologizing them (Hammack & Wignall, 2024; Hughes & Hammack, 2022; Newmahr, 2011).
A range of theoretical conceptualizations of kink beyond the pathological model have been developed. One approach posits kink as a form of leisure, emphasizing pleasurable and technical components, while situating potential harms as risks akin to other sporting or leisure activities (Williams & Sprott, 2022; Wuyts & Morrens, 2022). Kink has also been theorized as a sexual orientation, acknowledging innate attraction and sexual interests (Sprott & Williams, 2019). Other research focuses on kink as a social identity, a subculture or social community (Weinberg, 2023; Wignall et al., 2022). These frameworks can be simultaneously applied to kink depending on one’s motivations for engaging in kink (Wignall, 2022).
[T]hree problems persist within the recent body of research into kink: 1) difficulty in reaching participants; 2) recruitment predominantly via identification rather than practice or desire; 3) the over reliance on FetLife for recruitment.
The problem with conducting research on those who predominantly identify as kinky is that these individuals often strongly identify with the social aspects of kink and are part of kink communities (Fennell, 2022; Wignall, 2023; Zambelli, 2017), resulting in research having a skewed understanding of kinky individuals. This approach mirrors sexualities research that recruits people by identity (“do you identify as LGB”) versus by desire or practices, with the former yielding fewer respondents who also report worse issues (Anderson & McCormack, 2016). Such a focus in kink research is similarly problematic as it fails to recognize the multiple components of kink, such as identity, behavior, and orientation (Williams & Sprott, 2022). Consequently, participants who engage in the social components of kink are often privileged and over-represented in research compared to those with kinky desires.
[R]esearch on kink has become over-reliant on recruiting through the biggest, predominantly heterosexual, kinky SSNS – FetLife. Indeed, Wignall (2023) argued that rather than providing generalizable insights into kink, such research only provides insight into FetLife users and strongly privileges people who are attached to a kink identity label. Similarly, the focus on particular aspects of kink culture also means that the broader dynamics of kinky peoples’ lives are marginalized (McCormack et al., 2022).
[T]he complexities of kink identity are often not examined in detail, and questions of identity can be downplayed in surveys. People who engage in kink may frame it as an important component of their identity, both as a sexual and a social identity (Hughes & Hammack, 2019), or it may not be important at all (Wignall, 2022). For some, kink is a sexual orientation, with some kinky people describing their sexual orientation as “kinky” over more common labels (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual), as the kink activities they engage in are more important than the gender of the person they engage in sex with (Williams & Sprott, 2022). For others, kink can be an important social identity, with their friendships and relationships deeply embedded within kink subcultures, attending kink events and engaging with kink SSNS as a way of developing social connections (Wignall, 2022).
The 18 items included in the five-factor scale were summed to test the updated KOS scale ranging from a possible 18–90 points, where 18 would be the “least kinky” and 90 would be the “most kinky” with 54 being the possible median score. Of the 1025 respondents, the KOS score was relatively normally distributed centered around the mean 73.1 (SD: 7.9), with a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 90 (see Figure 4). To evaluate whether this score (73.1) was statistically higher than the possible KOS average (54), we ran an independent onesided sample t-test. The analysis revealed a highly significant difference, t(1025) = 77.7, p < .01, indicating that the average KOS score of the kink participants was significantly higher than the possible average.
[I]n the final 18 item version of the KOS, there were five factors: kink identity; kink paraphernalia; kink community; kink practices; and sexual communication. There are some clear overlaps between the envisaged and actual factors, with identity appearing in both, and practices mapping directly with practices as well as encapsulating components of attitudes and desires. The other factors (community, paraphernalia, and communication) are unsurprising: a strong kink identity is associated with community engagement (Damm et al., 2018); previous research has highlighted the importance of kink paraphernalia in definitions of kink (Wignall, 2022); communication is a cornerstone of kink engagement and is related to the importance of consent within kink practices (Williams et al., 2014).
These findings support the thesis that all individuals have some level of a kink orientation on a continuum (see Wignall, 2022), and is consistent with how sexual orientation is conceptualized and measured using validated scales (e.g., Kinsey et al., 1948; Savin-Williams, 2014).
The purpose of the KOS is two-fold: 1) to move beyond identity measures for studying kink to include people with kinky characteristics and/or a kink orientation who are not part of kink communities; 2) to enable a range of analyses of kink with other issues and factors.
[T]he relatively short nature of the KOS (18 questions) also means that it is practicable to include in larger surveys, particularly if the focus is on sexuality more generally.
[T]he KOS needs to be validated within a larger, representative sample from the general population to generate a baseline score for comparison. Relatedly, due to the recruitment method, phase 3 only predominantly consisted of kinky gay/bisexual men; therefore, the KOS needs to also be validated within other diverse kink samples.
[A]lthough we used other kink scales as reference in Phase 1 of the development of our KOS, the purpose of our study was to establish and validate the KOS within a kink sample. Thus, the KOS was not compared quantitatively with other scales of a similar nature. As such, future research should explore how the KOS compares with other kink related scales, such as the BDSM Proclivity Scale and the Attitudes About Sadomasochism Scale, as well as other sexuality related measures.
☙