Quantifying Criminal Sexual Acts: The Illegal Sexual Exploitation Module of the Revised Sexual Experiences Survey-Victimization (SES-V) Measure

ABSTRACT

Since the initial development of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) four decades ago, the SES has been designed to measure a range of forms of sexual exploitation, including acts that are coercive but not legally sanctioned as well as acts that legally qualify as crimes. That feature was retained in the revised Sexual Experiences Survey-Victimization (SES-V) measure. This article reviews the theoretical and empirical literature that guided the development of the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V, which measures experiences of nonconsensual exploitation resulting in sexual contact and which is designed to correspond to legal definitions across multiple jurisdictions. This article addresses research and applied contexts in which the distinction between legal and illegal sexual exploitation is important and the challenges and limitations involved in writing survey items that correspond to legal definitions. It also discusses revisions made to the items that make up the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V as compared to the illegal items in prior versions of the SES, including a new operationalization of non-consent and an expansion of the sexual acts and exploitative tactics that are included. Finally, the article discusses directions for future research on the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V.

Since the development of the first version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982) four decades ago, the SES has been designed to measure a continuum of sexual exploitation ranging from sexual contact obtained through verbal coercion (which is undesirable and often harmful but not illegal) to physically forced penetrative rape (which is a crime). The fact that the SES has always included items that corresponded to criminal definitions of rape frequently has been noted as a strength of the SES (e.g., Rinehart & Yeater, 2011; Strang & Peterson, 2017) and has been important for researchers, clinicians, and policy makers. For example, one of the most important and influential contributions of the SES was its detection of the startlingly high rates of hidden rape—experiences of nonconsensual sex that met legal definitions of “rape” but were not reported to police and thus were missing from official crime statistics — and unacknowledged rape—experiences of nonconsensual sex that met legal definitions of “rape” but were not labeled as such by the victims themselves (Koss, 1985). The fact that items on the original SES corresponded to legal definitions allowed for these important discoveries. In developing the newest revision of the victimization version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES-V), we believed it was critical to retain the ability to measure forms of sexual exploitation that qualify as sex crimes. Thus, the SES-V (described in its entirety in Koss et al., 2024) consists of four separate modules, which can be used independently or in combination to measure sexual exploitation; one of those modules assesses illegal sexual exploitation.

Notably, even among acts of illegal sexual exploitation, there is a broad continuum. At the lower severity end, there are some types of illegal sexual exploitation that involve no direct physical contact (e.g., watching someone undress without their permission, exposing oneself to someone without their permission). These behaviors are frequently classified as relatively minor sex crimes; for example, they are typically categorized as misdemeanors in the United States (U.S.). At the higher severity end, there are forms of illegal sexual exploitation that involve sexual contact. These behaviors are sometimes treated as minor crimes (e.g., in the case of nonconsensual non-penetrative sexual contact) and sometimes as serious crimes (e.g., in the case of nonconsensual penetrative contact); these more serious crimes would be classified as felonies in the U.S. Although both contact and non-contact acts of sexual exploitation are sometimes illegal, they also are distinct in many ways. For example, non-contact sexual exploitation is far more prevalent than contact sexual exploitation (Stop Street Harassment, 2019). Non-contact sexual exploitation results in fewer negative outcomes for victims, on average, than contact sexual exploitation, although both can be harmful (Pinchevsky et al., 2020); in particular, non-contact exploitation that is recurrent can have a cumulative negative impact (Carretta & Szymanski, 2020). Non-contact sexual exploitation is most often perpetrated by someone who is a stranger to the victim (e.g., MacMillan et al., 2000), whereas contact sexual exploitation is most often perpetrated by someone known to the victim (e.g., Ullman & Siegel, 1993). Given these important distinctions, we recognized that researchers sometimes might be interested in both contact and non-contact exploitation but at other times might be interested in only one or the other. Thus, we created two separate modules: one to measure acts of noncontact sexual exploitation (some of which are illegal and some of which are not), labeled the Noncontact Sexual Exploitation module, and one to measure illegal sexual exploitation involving sexual contact, labeled the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module (called the “Contact” module when the SES-V is presented to respondents to avoid biasing responses by labeling the behaviors as illegal). Here, we review the theoretical and empirical considerations that guided the revision of the items that make up the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the new SES-V, which assesses experiences with illegal sexual exploitation involving physical contact.

Contexts in Which the Ability to Identify Illegal Acts is (And is Not) Important

Although we wanted to retain the ability to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal sexual exploitation in the new SES-V, it is important to acknowledge that this distinction is not always a relevant one. In many research, clinical, and policy-making contexts, the (il)legality of sexual exploitation is not an important or meaningful metric. Consistent with this, when the first version of the SES was published, the authors highlighted the importance of a dimensional approach to physical contact forms of sexual exploitation, saying, “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum” (Koss & Oros, 1982, p. 455). As a result, the original SES was designed to measure a continuum of physical contact forms of sexual exploitation that ranged from legal but coercive to criminal forms of exploitation, including penetrative sex obtained through physical force (i.e., rape).

Other feminist authors have noted the advantages of defining sexual exploitation more broadly than legal definitions. As Muehlenhard and colleagues noted three decades ago, because men are most likely to be perpetrators and women are most likely to be victims of sexual exploitation, narrow definitions “serve to advantage men over women” — for example, by promoting the idea that men’s engagement in coercive sex is entirely distinct from forced sex and thus is acceptable (Muehlenhard et al., 1992, p. 40). However, legal definitions of sexual exploitation have also disadvantaged male victims. Historically, legal definitions of rape have often excluded men as victims or minimized men’s same-sex victimization by including it within legal statues related to “sodomy,” a category that also encompassed consensual same-sex sexual activity (Turchik & Edwards, 2012). Thus, in general, as noted more recently by Muehlenhard and colleagues, “laws — which are passed by legislators — generally represent the interests of dominant groups. Researchers need not be constrained by legal definitions” (Muehlenhard et al., 2017, p. 550). In other words, adopting an inclusive definition that challenges sexist and heterosexist biases in law-making may help to promote greater social justice.

Further, sexual exploitation that is not criminal (e.g., verbal pressure to engage in sex) can still lead to psychological distress, lowered self-esteem, and other negative psychological outcomes for those that experience it (French et al., 2015; Osman & Lane, 2022; Zweig et al., 1997). For some negative psychological outcomes (e.g., posttraumatic stress symptoms, self-blame, helplessness), the impact of sex through nonphysical coercion (which is generally not defined as a crime) seems to be less severe than the impact of sex through incapacitation or force (which is more universally defined as a crime; e.g., Brown et al., 2009), but for other negative psychological outcomes (e.g., alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences), the impact of nonphysical coercion may be as great or greater than the impact of acts that legally qualify as crimes (Shaw & Read, 2021). Thus, for most research that is examining psychological impacts of sexual exploitation, the distinction between what is legal versus illegal may not be particularly important.

Nevertheless, there are some advantages to carefully attending to definitions of illegal acts when creating a measure of sexual exploitation. Over the years, some skeptics have argued that the high rates of sexual exploitation reported by researchers are exaggerated for the purposes of policy advocacy (see Cook & Koss, 2005; Muehlenhard et al., 1994; Rutherford, 2011, for reviews of the criticisms). Relying on legal definitions when reporting prevalence rates can help to discredit these criticisms. As Muehlenhard et al. (2017) noted,

Using a legal definition might facilitate communication if the public already understands the legal term. If critics denounce researchers’ definitions as too broad, researchers could justify their definitions by pointing out that their definitions match legal definitions, in effect giving their definitions a cultural imprimatur. (p. 550)

Further, there are some research contexts in which the ability to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal sexual exploitation is critical. For example, some criminologically-focused research questions require the ability to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal sexual exploitation: What percentage of illegal sexual exploitation experiences are reported to police? Why do victims choose not to report illegal sexual exploitation to the police? The distinction is also relevant for some psychological research questions. Notably, for example, the psychological researchers cited above would not have been able to make the argument that even non-criminal sexual exploitation can lead to psychological distress if those researchers were not able to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal acts in their research.

Outside of research, the distinction between legal and illegal acts might have relevance in some applied contexts as well. For example, in order to qualify for a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5^th Edition; DSM-5) requires that individuals experience, “exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 271). Although the DSM-5 does not explicitly define what counts as “sexual violence,” in the description of the diagnostic features, it lists examples that seem to correspond to illegal sexual behavior: “e.g., forced sexual penetration, alcohol/drug-facilitated sexual penetration, abusive sexual contact, noncontact sexual abuse, sexual trafficking” (p. 274). Similarly, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (11^th Edition; ICD-11) includes sexual trauma as an example of a traumatic event in the diagnosis for PTSD but specifies that events must be “extremely threatening or horrific” to qualify as a trauma (World Health Organization, 2019); thus, legal (i.e, more socially tolerated) forms of sexual exploitation likely would not rise to the level of a “trauma” according to the ICD-11. Thus, clinicians who are assessing sexual exploitation victims for a diagnosis of PSTD might be particularly interested in the victims’ experiences of illegal sexual exploitation.

Given that there are some contexts in which the ability to distinguish between legal and illegal sexual exploitation is important, the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the new SES-V specifically focuses on behaviors that would qualify as illegal in most states in the U.S. as well as in many other nations (e.g., Canada, some South American countries, most European nations, Australia, and New Zealand).

Challenges in Measuring Illegal Sexual Exploitation

For multiple reasons, it is difficult to design self-report questionnaire items that correspond neatly to legal definitions of sex crimes. Most formidably, legal definitions of sex crimes vary across jurisdictions, which means that definitions are different, not only internationally, but also across jurisdictions within some countries such as the U.S. and Australia. For example, in the U.S., even the terms used to label sex crimes differ widely, with sex crime statutes across different states referring to rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual battery among other terminology (Kruttschnitt et al., 2014). Kruttschnitt et al. (2014) outlined the multiple dimensions on which sex crime statutes differ across U.S. states, including the type of sexual act that occurs (e.g., whether penetration is required, whether skin to skin contact is required), what counts as force (e.g., whether force is specified as physical force, threats, or violence), and definitions of consent (e.g., what counts as the absence of consent and what conditions undermine one’s capacity to consent).

Further, laws often do not define specific terms like “consent” or “incapacitation” from drugs or alcohol, effectively leaving determinations to law enforcement officers, attorneys, judges, other legal and criminological personnel, and juries. For example, definitions of sexual consent are highly inconsistent across state laws in the U.S., with many states not defining the term at all (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 2020). Similarly, it is generally illegal to engage in sexual activity with someone who is too intoxicated (drunk or high) to give consent; however, many laws offer very little guidance about what level of intoxication renders someone incapable of consent.

To illustrate the challenges of interpreting legal language, especially as related to intoxication, Minnesota (a U.S state) law specified that sexual penetration occurring when “the actor knows or has reason to know the complainant is mentally incapacitated” is criminal sexual conduct in the third degree (Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree, Minn Stat § 609.344, 2020). However, another state legal statute (Definitions, Minn Stat § 609.341, 2019) defined “mental incapacitation” as “a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, or any other substance, administered to that person without that person’s agreement.” The Minnesota Supreme court recently applied this definition of mental incapacitation to throw out a rape conviction because the woman who reported the rape in the case had voluntarily consumed substances to the point of unconsciousness prior to the defendant having sex with her (Ankney, 2021). The legal definition of incapacitation in Minnesota was subsequently changed to close this loophole (Definitions, Minn. Stat. § 609.341, 2021).

The vagueness and inconsistencies in legal definitions of sexual exploitation leave prosecutors with what Spohn and Tellis (2012) called “a significant amount of unchecked discretionary power” to decide what does and does not fit with legal definitions (p. 175). Notably, research suggests that different prosecutors have different thresholds for determining which acts of sexual exploitation fit within legal definitions. The early versions of the SES were designed to correspond to legal definitions of rape in the state of Ohio, where the SES was developed. Gylys and McNamara (1996) asked prosecuting attorneys in Ohio to indicate whether the items on the early version of the SES (Koss et al., 1987) corresponded to state law. The majority of attorneys agreed that the items measuring intercourse through threats and intercourse through physical force corresponded to legal definitions of rape. There was far more disagreement for the item intended to measure rape through incapacitation, with just under half of attorneys indicating that that item corresponded to legal statutes. This highlights that even prosecuting attorneys with extensive knowledge of the law disagree about which behaviors fit within a particular jurisdiction’s definitions of sexual exploitation. Peterson et al. (2022) similarly found that, among a small group of prosecuting attorneys in the U.S. and Colombia, there was substantial disagreement about which sexual exploitation tactics fit with legal definitions of a sex crime both between and within the two countries.

Given all of these challenges, we recognize that it would be impossible to create items that perfectly correspond to all legal definitions of sex crimes across all jurisdictions. We also acknowledge that, given the inconsistency and vagueness inherent in legal statutes, there will inevitably be disagreements about exactly which behaviors should be included and excluded from the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module. Nevertheless, we hope that the module will capture behaviors that would correspond to illegal sexual exploitation in most jurisdictions. Specifically, the SES-V items were designed to assess some key components of illegal sexual exploitation that are common across many jurisdictions. As Fileborn (2011) described, Australia, which has many different jurisdictions with different laws, includes four key components of sex crimes that are consistent across the country’s jurisdictions: (1) there is a physical element (meaning a sexual behavior occurred without consent), (2) there is a mental element (meaning the defendant knew that the victim was not consenting or was reckless about determining whether the victim was consenting), (3) the physical element and the mental element co-occur (meaning the nonconsensual sex happened at the same time that the defendant knew there was or was reckless about whether there was non-consent) and (4) the action is voluntary (meaning the defendant’s actions were not a reflex, did not occur while sleep walking, etc.). Because the SES-V is assessing the victim’s perspective on the sexual exploitation — and thus it might be difficult for victims to evaluate voluntariness on the part of the perpetrator (e.g., whether the perpetrator was, for example, sleep walking) — and because this type of involuntary perpetration is likely to be exceedingly rare, the SES-V items focus on the first three elements that are common to many jurisdictions’ sexual exploitation laws: the occurrence of sexual acts in conjunction with expressions of non-consent or an inability to consent that is recognizable and visible to the perpetrator. Although all experiences measured by the SES-V Illegal Sexual Exploitation module were designed to reflect these three elements of criminal sexual behavior, internationally, some jurisdictions have criminal definitions of rape, in particular, that are force-based rather than consent-based. In those jurisdictions, these three elements are not enough to qualify a sexual behavior as rape; there must also be violence, physical helplessness, incapacity, or inability to resist in order for a sexual act to qualify as rape (Equality Now, 2021).

Given all of these many complexities, there are some acts included in the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module that are not currently illegal in some or most jurisdictions — especially some of the new tactics (discussed at greater length below) that have not previously appeared in the SES. For example, starting sex without giving the other person a chance to object seems to fit with the first three elements of criminal sexual behavior described by Fileborn (2011); yet, Peterson et al. (2022) found that only 39.3% of U.S. attorneys and 50.0% of Colombian attorneys reported that this behavior qualified as a “sex crime” in their jurisdiction, perhaps because the element of force is absent. Similarly, “stealthing” (i.e., nonconsensual condom removal during sexual activity) is just beginning to be identified as illegal in some jurisdictions; for example, it is illegal, but not criminal, in the state of California (Shah, 2023). Thus, the behaviors in this module are labeled as “illegal” to suggest that they would likely fit within some legal definitions, but this does not imply that they are necessarily illegal in any particular jurisdiction, and some might be illegal but not criminal. Further, even if a nonconsensual sexual behavior from this module fits with the definition of a sex crime in a particular jurisdiction, that certainly does not imply that such a behavior, if reported, would be prosecuted or lead to conviction within that jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the items in the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module correspond quite well to the United Nations’ Model Rape Law (Simonovic, 2021), which explicitly includes, for example, non-consensual acts of being made to penetrate another person and exploitative tactics of starting sex with someone who is asleep in the definition of rape. These sexual acts and exploitative tactics represent some of the new content in the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V (see below for further discussion). In this way, like the United Nations, we opted for a broader definition of illegal sexual exploitation than is included in many laws in order to serve an advocacy purpose. As stated in relation to the Model Rape Law, important objectives when defining sexual exploitation are to “support the revision and elimination of provisions that are discriminatory and contrary to international law” and to “eliminate from law and judicial practices all forms of gender-based discrimination, including stereotypes and myths about rape” (Simonovic, 2021, p. 3).

Finally, we do provide a scoring category (see Koss et al., 2024) that corresponds to a subset of items in the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V that we believe are consistent with the U.S. federal definition of rape. Specifically, U.S. federal law defines rape as, “The penetration no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). Researchers who want to ensure that their measurement would fit within this relatively narrow federal definition of rape should use the scoring that corresponds to the FBI definition of rape (presented in Table 2 of Koss et al., 2024).

Changes to the Illegal Sexual Exploitation Items as Compared to Prior Versions of the SES

The illegal acts items from the most recent prior version of the SES (Koss et al., 2007) served as the starting point for our SES-V Illegal Sexual Exploitation module. However, we made several changes to reflect new research and scholarship since 2007. Namely, the language around non-consent was updated, and additional sexual acts and exploitative tactics were added to the new SES-V. For a summary of changes in the items measuring illegal sexual exploitation across all of the different iterations of the SES, see Table 1. The full SES-V measure, including all items from the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module are presented in Koss et al. (2024).

Table 1. Changes to the items measuring illegal sexual exploitation across different versions of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES).

	SES (Koss & Oros, 1982)	SES (Koss et al., 1987)	SES-SFV (Koss et al., 2007)	SES-V (Koss et al., 2024)
Language to indicate non-consent
	“when you didn’t want to”	“when you didn’t want to”	“without my consent”	“without your permission”
Approach to gender
	Designed for women respondents to report on experiences with men (e.g., “Have you ever had sexual intercourse with a man even though you didn’t want to”)	Designed for women respondents to report on experiences with men (e.g., “Have you had a man attempt sexual intercourse … when you didn’t want to”)	Designed for men and women to report on experiences with men and women; equates gender with anatomy (e.g., “A man put his penis into my butt”)	Designed for any gender to report on experiences with any gender; gender is not equated with anatomy (e.g., “Someone putting their penis, fingers, a sex toy, or another object in your vagina/genital opening”).
Nonconsensual sexual acts measured
Non-penetrative acts performed on respondent	√ “make you engage in kissing or petting”^a	√ “had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse” ^b	√ “someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch, or butt) or removed some of my clothes”	√ “have non-penetrative sexual contact” defined as “being kissed or touched in a sexual way, having sexual parts of your body (breasts/chest, butt, crotch/genitals) stroked or grabbed … . Sexual contact also includes making you touch these parts of someone else’s body.”
Being made to perform non- penetrative acts on another person	√ “make you engage in kissing or petting”^a	√ “had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse” ^b	X	√ “have non-penetrative sexual contact” defined as “being kissed or touched in a sexual way, having sexual parts of your body (breasts/chest, butt, crotch/genitals) stroked or grabbed … . Sexual contact also includes making you touch these parts of someone else’s body.”
Oral sex performed on respondent	√ “sexual acts with you such as anal or oral intercourse”	√ “you had sex acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis)”^c	√ ”someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them”	√ “have oral sex” defined as “someone using their mouth, lips, or tongue to touch your penis, anus, or crotch (genital area), or making you use your mouth on someone else’s penis, anus, or crotch (genital area).”
Being made to perform oral sex on another person	√ “sexual acts with you such as anal or oral intercourse”	√ “you had sex acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis)”^c	√ “someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with them”	√ “have oral sex” defined as “someone using their mouth, lips, or tongue to touch your penis, butt (anus), or crotch (genital area), or making you use your mouth on someone else’s penis, butt (anus), or crotch (genital area).”
Vaginal penetration of respondent	√ “had sexual intercourse with a man”	√ “had sexual intercourse”	√ ”a man put his penis into my vagina, or someone inserted fingers or objects”	√ ”penetrating your vagina/genital opening” defined as “someone putting their penis, fingers, a sex toy, or another object into your vagina or genital opening”
Being made to penetrate another person’s vagina	X	X	X	√ “making you penetrate their vagina/genital opening” defined as “someone making you penetrate their vagina or genital opening with your penis, fingers, a sex toy, or another object”
Anal penetration	√ ”sexual acts with you such as anal or oral intercourse”	√ “you had sex acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis)”^c	√ “a man put his penis into my butt, or someone inserted fingers or objects”	√ “penetrating your anus” defined as “someone putting their penis, fingers, a sex toy, or another object into your butt/anus”
Being made to penetrate another person’s anus	X	X	X	√ “making you penetrate their anus” defined as “someone making you penetrate their butt/anus with your penis, fingers, a sex toy, or another object”
Exploitative tactics measured
Substance-facilitated	X	√ “a man gave you alcohol or drugs”	√ “taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop what was happening”	√ “someone bought me drinks or gave me strong drinks to make me impaired and unable to give permission or stop them” “someone took advantage of me after I drank alcohol by choice and became impaired and unable to give permission or stop them” “someone put drugs into my drink or misled me about the contents of pills, cigarettes, or powders to make me impaired and unable to give permission or stop them” “someone took advantage of me when I took drugs by choice and became impaired and unable to give permission or stop them”
Distinguishes between voluntary versus involuntary substance consumption	X	X	X	√
Distinguishes between alcohol- versus drug-facilitated	X	X	X	√
No opportunity to refuse	X	X	X	√ “someone gave me no advance notice so I could not agree or object, including times when I was sleeping or semi-awake”
Contraception deception	X	X	X	√ “Someone withheld information about sexual infection status, lied about using birth control, or tampered with or removed a condom after agreeing to use one”
Threat of physical force or harm	√ “he threatened to use physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) if you didn’t cooperate”	√ “a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)”	√ “threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me”	√ “someone threatened to physically harm me, someone close to me, or my pets”
Physical force	√ “a man used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)”	√ “a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.)”	√ “using force, for example holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or having a weapon”	√ “someone used any level of physical force such as holding me down with their body weight, pinning my arms, or other actions perceived as physical force”
Misuse of authority	X	√ “a man used his position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor)”	X	√ “People in positions of authority could be bosses/supervisors, health care providers, counselors, teachers, coaches, religious leaders, youth group leaders, or criminal/legal personnel. Someone misused their position of authority over me”
Commercial sexual exploitation	X	X	X	√ “Someone made me engage in sexual acts for money by using threats to limit my ability to meet life needs such as housing, misleading me into doing a job that involved sexual acts, or physically forcing me”
Attempted but non-completed sexual acts using any illegal tactic	√ “a man tried to get sexual intercourse … but for various reasons sexual intercourse did not occur”^d	√ “have you had a man attempt sexual intercourse … but intercourse did not occur”^e	√ “Even though it did not happen, someone TRIED to have [sex act]”	√ “Someone used any of these behaviors such as abusing their authority, threatening or using bodily harm, or taking advantage of my incapacitation from drugs or alcohol, to have any of the following sex acts, but the attempted act did not happen.”

Note. The sexual acts in the SES have become more behaviorally specific over time. For example, in the early versions, terms such as “sexual intercourse” and “anal or oral intercourse” were not behaviorally defined. Thus, these terms may have been interpreted in various ways by participants. Similarly, phrases like “sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse)” could be interpreted as asking about instances in which non-penetrative acts are performed on the respondent, instances in which the respondent is made to perform non-penetrative acts on someone else, or both.

^aMeasure only assessed “kissing and petting” if it was obtained through physical force.

^bMeasure only assessed “sex play” if it was obtained through misuse of authority, threat, or force (not through substances).

^cMeasure only assessed these sexual acts if they were obtained through threat or force.

^dMeasure only assessed attempted “sexual intercourse” obtained through threats or force.

^eMeasure only assessed attempted “sexual intercourse” obtained through incapacitation, threats, or force.

Language to Specify the Non-Consensual Nature of the Acts

As noted above, legal definitions of rape and related sex crimes typically specify that, in order to qualify as criminal, sexual acts must occur without the victim’s consent (Fileborn, 2011). This is also consistent with scientific conceptualizations of the three elements required to measure sexual exploitation: lack of consent, tactics used to obtain sexual activity, and type of sexual activity (Cook et al., 2011). To illustrate the centrality of consent in rape law, Missouri (a U.S. state) defines rape saying, “A person commits the offense of rape … if he or she has sexual intercourse with another person who is incapacitated, incapable of consent, or lacks the capacity to consent, or by the use of forcible compulsion” (Rape in the First Degree, Mo. Stat. § 566.030, 2017). Oregon (a U.S. state) defines rape as “sexual intercourse with another person … if: the victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the person; … the victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness” (Rape in the First Degree, Ors. Stat. § 163.375, 2021). Canadian law defines sexual assault as occurring if, “a person is touched in any way that interferes with their sexual integrity: this includes kissing, touching, intercourse and any other sexual activity without his/her consent (Sexual assault, Canadian Criminal Code, Section 271, 2022). In the United Kingdom, the law specifies that, for all types of sexual offenses, “the defendant engages in sexual activity with the complainant, without the complainant’s consent” (United Kingdom Sexual Offences Act, Part 1, 2003). Thus, when measuring illegal sexual exploitation, it is critical that items clarify that the sexual acts were non-consensual. The language used to indicate the non-consensual nature of the sex acts has evolved across the different iterations of the SES (see Table 1).

The early versions of the SES (Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss et al., 1987) asked about sexual experiences that occurred “when you didn’t want to.” Subsequent research, however, has highlighted several problems with this language. In some ways, this language may be too broad, capturing acts that are not illegal and resulting in false positives. Research has demonstrated that sometimes individuals freely consent to sex that they do not fully want (O’Sullivan & Allgier, 1998; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). This may be especially common within established relationships for such reasons as to promote intimacy or to satisfy one’s partner and may, in some contexts, be associated with positive outcomes (O’Sullivan & Allgier, 1998). Additionally, unwanted but consensual sex does not fit legal definitions of rape and other sex crimes. Thus, use of the phrase “when you didn’t want to” may be too broad, resulting in false positives. In other ways, though, the phrase “when you didn’t want to” may be too narrow, resulting in false negatives. Research also suggests that individuals are often ambivalent about sex, meaning that they simultaneously have reasons for both wanting and not wanting sex (Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2005; O’Sullivan & Gaines, 1998; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007; Pinquart, 2010). Individuals who feel ambivalent about a particular sexual encounter or about engaging in specific sexual acts, but who ultimately refuse, may struggle to determine whether their coerced or forced experiences qualify as “unwanted.” In fact, Peterson and Muehlenhard (2007) found that, in cases of non-consensual sexual intercourse obtained through force or incapacitation, some victims reported that they had reasons for “wanting” the sex even though they did not consent to it. For example, participants reported that, prior to the rape, they were aroused, attracted to the other person, and interested in sex; ultimately, though, they did not (or could not) consent and sex occurred without their consent. Thus, these individuals might not endorse having experienced sex that they “didn’t want” even though their experiences fit legal definitions of rape. In this way, the phrase, “when you didn’t want to” may be too broad, resulting in false negatives.

Given these considerations, the 2007 version of the SES replaced the language “when you didn’t want to” with the language “without my consent.” As many legal statutes refer to a lack of consent as the defining feature of rape and other sex crimes, this language is advantageous in that it is highly consistent with legal definitions. However, there are some potential problems with the use of the term “consent.” In particular, there is no single agreed upon definition of consent, and consent is often interpreted and communicated nonverbally, indirectly, or through passive nonresistance (see Muehlenhard et al., 2016, for a review). Thus, for example, some victims of incapacitated rape may wrongly believe that they consented because they did not actively physically resist the sexual advances. In focus groups with college men and women designed to evaluate different language choices on measures of sexual victimization, some participants noted that individuals who experienced forced or incapacitated sex might wrongly believe that they “consented” to sex because they engaged in consensual kissing or other types of intimacy (Hamby & Koss, 2003). In this way, use of the word “consent” may result in false negatives. Further, use of the word “consent” may be even more problematic now than it was in 2007. In recent years, consent education has proliferated — especially in secondary schools and on college campuses — with the goal of reducing the high rates of sexual assault in those specific social contexts (Beres, 2020). Often these consent education programs teach “affirmative consent,” which is the idea that consent cannot be communicated by passive nonresistance but rather that consent must be active and affirmative. This is sometimes called the “yes means yes” standard, and although it is imperfect, it has advantages over the “no means no” standard in which consent is assumed unless there is a clear “no” (see Muehlenhard et al., 2016, for a review of strengths and weaknesses of affirmative consent). However, definitions of consent taught in these affirmative consent programs do not align with many jurisdictions’ legal definitions of consent.¹ For adolescents and young adults who have been exposed to modern consent education, the discrepancy between what they learned in consent education programs versus legal definitions of consent may make the language “without my consent” particularly difficult to interpret. In this way, use of the word “consent” may result in false positives. Specifically, individuals might endorse that an experience happened without consent because there was no affirmative consent, but such a situation might not qualify as nonconsensual according to criminal legal definitions given that only a small number of jurisdictions have adopted an affirmative consent standard for criminal law.

To avoid the problems associated with the phrases “didn’t want to” and “without consent,” in the SES-V, we specified that sexual acts must have occurred “without your permission.” There are several advantages to this phrase. First, the phrase “without your permission” is likely to be easily understood even by young respondents; for example, when inviting children to participate in research, researchers often refer to “permission” rather than “consent” in research documents (e.g., Ford et al., 2007). Second, operationalizing consent in terms of permission is consistent with legal definitions (Muehlenhard et al., 2016), but the term “permission,” unlike the term “consent,” is also widely used outside of legal contexts and outside of discussions of rape and sexual assault. This non-legalistic language may help to facilitate item endorsement among those that do not recognize their sexual victimization as a crime. Finally, unlike behavioral phrases such as, “after you have indicated ‘no’ to their sexual advance,” which are used in some measures (e.g., Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003), “without your permission” captures instances in which there was no opportunity to refuse or object, including rape through incapacitation as well as illegal noncontact acts such as when someone exposes themselves to a victim or masturbates in front of a victim without permission.

Although there are many advantages to the language “without your permission,” we were still aware that respondents might interpret this phrase in different ways. For example, some respondents might wrongly assume that lack of permission must be communicated verbally. To address that issue, we provided multiple behaviorally-specific examples of ways that participants might express a lack of permission (see Table 2), including both verbal and nonverbal indicators. This list was guided by research on common ways for communicating non-consent or refusing sex (Griner et al., 2021; Marcantonio & Jozkowski, 2020; Muehlenhard et al., 2016).

Table 2. Examples of ways of defining and communicating “lack of permission” provided in the instructions of the Sexual Experiences Survey- Victimization (SES-V) as guided by empirical literature.

Type of lack of permission	Example(s) provided in the instructions of the SES-V	Examples of sources supporting this as a common or important example of non-permission
Lack of opportunity to refuse	“You were unable or were given no chance to refuse.”	Canan et al. (2020), Kern and Peterson (2020), Littleton et al. (2019)
Incapacitation	“You were incapacitated and could not stop what was happening.”	Eileraas (2011); Muehlenhard et al. (2016)
Verbal refusal	“You tried to convince the other person/persons to stop, pleaded, or cried.” “You made excuses for or gave reasons why you couldn’t do it.” “You directly said “no” or “I don’t want to.”	Jozkowski et al. (2014); Kitzinger and Frith (1999); Marcantonio and Jozkowski (2020); O’Byrne et al. (2006, 2008)
Non-verbal refusal	“You pushed them away, moved their hand off, tried to create physical distance, hit, or kicked.”	Jozkowski et al. (2014); Marcantonio and Jozkowski (2020)
Consent to some acts but not others	“You said yes to some sexual acts, but acts occurred that were not agreed upon.”	Beres (2014); Humphreys (2004)
Consent to sex but not without condoms/contraception	“You said yes to sex only with a condom or contraception, but acts occurred without protection.”	Davis (2019); Grace and Anderson (2018)

Addition of New Sexual Acts

Another major change to the SES-V is the inclusion of items to assess experiences in which the victim is compelled to perform sexual acts on the perpetrator, including being compelled to penetrate the perpetrator’s vaginal/genital opening or anus. Prior research has referred to these types of incidents as being made to perform sex acts or being made to penetrate another person (Smith et al., 2022; Weare, 2021). Although the 2007 SES was designed to be gender neutral, the measure asked about nonconsensual fondling/kissing/clothes removal performed on the participant, oral sex (performed or received by the participant), penetration of the participant’s vagina, and penetration of the participant’s anus, but did not ask about instances in which a victim was compelled to touch the perpetrator’s genitals or compelled to penetrate the perpetrator’s vagina/genital opening or anus. In contrast, on the SES-V, for each exploitive tactic, individuals are queried regarding whether they have had an experience in which another person utilized that tactic to compel them to perform sexual acts on the other person.

In particular, inclusion of experiences of being compelled to penetrate another person was regarded by members of the SES-V revision collaboration as critical to ensure that the SES-V is inclusive of the experiences of individuals with diverse gender and sexual identities. The revision team labeled these acts “made to penetrate,” and Anderson et al. (2024) described the empirical process of developing and validating the language used for these new sexual acts. A growing body of literature supports that inclusion of these made-to-penetrate experiences is necessary to assess the experiences of cisgender men. For example, the 2015 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence (NISVS) survey found that 7.1% of U.S. men reported an experience during their lifetime of being compelled to penetrate another person (inclusive of being compelled to perform oral sex; Smith et al., 2018). Notably, the NISVS only asked men about being made to penetrate, which (1) equates gender and anatomy and thus excludes transgender and gender non-binary individuals and (2) excludes instances in which someone of any gender is made to penetrate another person with a finger or object (see Canan et al., 2020). In addition to the NISVS, several studies among primarily heterosexual cisgender college men support the idea that men’s experiences of attempted and completed sexual exploitation frequently involve experiences in which they were compelled to perform penetrative sexual acts on another person (Anderson et al., 2020). Likewise, studies of sexual victimization among cisgender college men that include experiences of being compelled to perform penetrative sex on another person find a higher prevalence of sexual exploitation among men than studies that do not include these acts (Forsman, 2017; Littleton et al., 2020; Luetke et al., 2021). Further, Kern et al. (2024) found that nonconsensual experiences of being made to penetrate someone else were associated with similar levels of psychological distress (i.e., PTSD symptoms, depressive symptoms, anger, and negative posttraumatic cognitions) as nonconsensual experiences in which one’s own body was penetrated, suggesting that these experiences are meaningful and important to capture. Consistent with past research, in an initial examination of the prevalence of sexual exploitation on the SES-V in a national sample (N = 379), Peterson et al. (2024) found that the made-to-penetrate items on the SES-V identified 46 male victims (28.7% of the total sample of men), including seven male victims who would not have been captured if those sexual acts had been excluded from the SES-V. This is fairly consistent with past research that has assessed the prevalence of made-to-penetrate sexual exploitation (Littleton et al., 2020).

Importantly, in addition to expanding the penetrative sexual acts measured in the SES-V, the definitions of the non-penetrative acts were also expanded to explicitly include being made to perform non-penetrative acts on someone else. The earliest versions of the SES asked about whether a man had ever made the respondent “engage in kissing or petting” (Koss & Oros, 1982) and whether a man “had sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse)” with the respondent (see Table 1). The wording of these non-penetrative acts suggested that they could include both non-penetrative acts performed on the respondent and non-penetrative acts that the respondent is made to perform on the other person, but the distinction between these was not explicit within the items. In the 2007 version of the SES (Koss et al., 2007), the wording explicitly excluded instances in which a respondent was made to perform non-penetrative acts on the other person: “someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch, or butt), or removed some of my clothes.” Thus, for the SES-V, we made it clear and explicit that the non-penetrative acts include both instances in which the behavior is done to the respondent and instances in which the respondent is made to perform the behavior on the other person.

In addition to expanding the sexual acts measured by the SES-V, we also attended carefully to the language used when describing the sexual acts. The prior version of the SES (Koss et al., 2007) equated gender with anatomy — for example, by using phrases like “a man put his penis” and telling respondents to skip items about vaginal penetration “if you are a male.” This made the measure less valid and acceptable for use with trans and nonbinary participants (Canan et al., 2020). In the SES-V, we referenced anatomy without making assumptions about respondents’ gender identity. Further, instead of asking exclusively about vaginal penetration, we changed the language to ask about penetration of the vagina or “genital opening” to make the anatomical language more inclusive for trans and nonbinary individuals who were assigned female at birth; this change was supported by prior qualitative research with transgender college students (Peitzmeier et al., 2022).

Addition of New Exploitative Tactics

In addition to expanding the sexual acts measured by the SES-V, we also expanded the exploitative tactics included on the measure. A new exploitative tactic, which has not been represented in prior versions of the SES, was added to the SES-V’s Illegal Sexual Exploitation module: “Someone gave no advance notice so I could not agree or object, including times when I was sleeping or semi-awake.” In qualitative studies of sexual victimization, victims have described experiences in which an individual initiated a sexual act without providing them with an opportunity to object or started engaging in sex with them while they were asleep. For example, Kern and Peterson (2020) found that both men and women reported sexual victimization experiences in which the other person just started engaging in sex with them without asking permission (e.g., a woman described, “One time my partner attempted to penetrate my anus without warning … I felt disgusted and my trust betrayed;” p. 577) and in which the person engaged in sex with them when they were asleep (e.g., a man described, “I woke up to being put into an all fours position and pain emerging from my rear;” p. 577). Similarly, in an open-ended response, a college woman in Littleton et al.’s (2019) mixed methods study wrote, “before I could say no to having sex, he inserted his penis inside my vagina” (p 560). Likewise, studies of perpetrators have found that some individuals endorsed using these tactics to obtain nonconsensual sex. Buday and Peterson (2015) found evidence of these types of exploitative tactics in their study of men’s and women’s sexual perpetration. For example, a woman, who described penetrating her boyfriend without consent stated, “My boyfriend and I were fooling around and I was curious how he would react to me sticking my fingers up his butt but knew he would not go for it. So as I went to give him a hand job I stuck my fingers in his butt” (p. 1049). Another woman described, “My partner was sleeping. I was horny so I massaged his penis … and gave him oral sex until he woke up” (p. 1049). Consistent with these qualitative studies, in a quantitative study of sexual victimization among lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women, Canan et al. (2020) adapted the 2007 version of the SES to include the exploitative tactic “just doing the behavior without giving me a chance to say ‘no’ (e.g., surprising me with the behavior).” This was the most frequently endorsed tactic of sexual exploitation among women across all sexual identity groups. Thus, the addition of the new item on the SES-V to measure nonconsensual sex when the other person does not have an opportunity to refuse allows researchers to capture these instances of sexual exploitation that were missed by prior versions of the SES. Indeed, consistent with these prior studies, Peterson et al. (2024) found that the “no advance notice” item on the SES-V was one of the most frequently endorsed of all the Illegal Sexual Exploitation items in a national sample. Further, there were individuals of all genders who endorsed that item but did not endorse other items on the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module, suggesting that it contributed unique information.

Additionally, the SES-V includes a new item assessing reproductive coercion and contraceptive deception, including stealthing (non-consensual condom removal): “Someone withheld information about sexual infection status, lied about using birth control, or tampered with or removed a condom after agreeing to use one.” Recent research suggests that these experiences are relatively common. For example, Davis (2019) found that nearly 10% of men who were inconsistent condom users reported that they had engaged in stealthing since age 14. In another study, 19% of women reported being a victim of stealthing (Bonar et al., 2021). Interestingly, although reproductive sexual exploitation victimization has mostly been studied in women, Peterson et al. (2024), using the new SES-V, found that men reported rates of reproductive exploitation that were comparable to women. Stealthing is increasingly being codified as illegal. For example, two pieces of U.S. federal legislation introduced in 2022 aim to (1) identify stealthing as a form of sexual violence and (2) offer incentives to states that pass laws allowing for civil damages to victims of stealthing (Branigin, 2022). The U.S. state of California has already outlawed stealthing (Hernandez, 2021), as have the countries of Canada (Papenfuss, 2022), Germany (Robinson, 2018), and the U.K. (Stonehouse, 2021).

The SES-V also expands the types of substance-related exploitation tactics assessed within the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module. Specifically, there are four substance-related exploitation tactics included in the module: taking advantage of the target’s substance-related impairment following voluntary alcohol use; taking advantage of the target’s substance-related impairment following voluntary drug use; providing alcohol to the target so that they become impaired; and using some form of deception (e.g., putting a drug in the target’s drink, lying about the specific drug provided to the target) to get the target to ingest drugs so that they become impaired. Studies of both college- and community-recruited samples provide evidence that experiences of rape and sexual assault frequently occur when the victim is impaired by alcohol and/or other drugs (Fedina et al., 2018; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Littleton et al., 2021; McConnell et al., 2020; Mellins et al., 2017; Ullman et al., 2019). Additionally, research supports that the majority of substance-related rapes and sexual assaults occur following voluntary, as opposed to involuntary, substance use, supporting the importance of separately assessing tactics involving voluntary and involuntary use (Champion et al., 2022; Ullman et al., 2019). Further, research suggests that certain minoritized groups, including sexual minority individuals, are at heightened risk for rape and other forms of illegal sexual exploitation when impaired by substances (Chen et al., 2020; Mellins et al., 2017), meaning that inclusive measurement requires a thorough assessment of substance-related sexual exploitation.

Another new tactic of exploitation was added to the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module to assess misuse of authority to obtain sex. The 1987 version of the SES included a similar item: “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man used his position of authority (boss, teacher, camp counselor, supervisor) to make you?” (Koss et al., 1987, p. 167), but this item was dropped in the 2007 revision due to infrequent endorsement (Koss et al., 2007; see Table 1). However, the #MeToo movement which began in 2017 shined a light on the pervasiveness and negative consequences of sex that occurs through the abuse of power and authority (O’Neil et al., 2018). Further, sex through misuse of authority has been empirically documented internationally among both men and women (with 0.8% to 21.2% of men and 2.7% to 17.6% of women reporting sexual exploitation experiences following misuse of authority across different nations; Krahé et al., 2015). Moreover, multiple recent cases extensively covered in the popular media support that experiences of sexual exploitation due to misuse of authority can and do occur at the systematic level within multiple institutional contexts (e.g., Diaz, 2022; Maclellan & Macaskill, 2022; Raymond, 2022). Thus, it seemed important to include an item assessing this type of exploitation in the revised SES-V.

Finally, a single item was added to the SES-V to assess experiences of commercial sexual exploitation (sometimes called sex trafficking). This item — “Someone made me engage in sexual acts for money by using threats to limit my ability to meet life needs such as housing, misleading me into doing a job that involved sexual acts, or physically forcing me to:” – is designed to correspond to the U.S. federal law, which defines commercial sex as “sex trafficking” when, “a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion” (22 U.S.C. § 7102(11)(A)). Notably, this legal definition applies only to those over age 18; for individuals under age 18, any recruitment, transportation, or solicitation leading to a commercial sex act qualifies as sex trafficking even if there is no coercion or force. Because of this age distinction, the new commercial sex item will undercount rates of illegal commercial sex exploitation for individuals who experienced this between the ages of 14 and 18.

It is worth noting that the expansion of the illegal exploitative tactics and sexual acts assessed by the SES-V means that completion time for the SES-V — and the items measuring illegal sexual exploitation on the SES-V, specifically — will be longer than the completion time for earlier versions of the SES. This cost is balanced, however, by prior research demonstrating that self-report measures of sensitive content seem to capture more instances of the target experience when the measure includes more items (Abbey et al., 2021; Matthews et al., 2020); thus, a larger number of items may reduce the risk that important components of illegal sexual exploitation are missed. Missed components could lead to an underestimate of the extent of the problem. Additionally, Peterson et al. (2024) found that completion of the entire SES-V, including all modules, follow-ups to the modules, specific incident report, and demographics, took approximately 18 minutes in a community sample, providing some evidence that the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module, which includes a total of 11 compound items (i.e., 11 exploitative tactics crossed with six sexual acts) administered on its own could be completed fairly quickly.

Scope of the Illegal Sexual Exploitation Module

No measure can capture all illegal sexual acts equally well. When creating the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V, we had to make difficult decisions about which types of illegal sexual behavior to include and which to exclude. From its inception, the SES has been focused on nonconsensual sexual acts resulting from verbal coercion, incapacitation, and force. For the revision, we opted to maintain this focus and to exclude (or minimally address) some sex crimes. For example, with the exception of the single item measuring abuse of authority, we did not include items measuring workplace sexual harassment (i.e., unwelcome sexual advances or verbal or physical sexual exploitation in the workplace) in the SES-V, despite the fact that some instances of workplace harassment are criminally unlawful and the majority are civil violations of statutes governing workplace treatment or equal access to education (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). Other behaviorally-specific, self-report measures of workplace harassment victimization exist, and many items are necessary to fully capture the range of workplace harassment (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 1995).

Similarly, we opted to exclude a comprehensive measurement of commercial sexual exploitation—despite the fact that commercial sexual exploitation is illegal and criminal. A single item was added to screen for this type of sexual exploitation, as described above, but again, other self-report measures that include multiple behaviorally-specific items have been developed to better capture commercial sexual exploitation victimization experiences (e.g., Kulig, 2022).

Finally, consistent with all prior versions of the SES, the SES-V focuses on sexual exploitation experiences occurring at age 14 or older and excludes child sexual abuse experiences, even though child sexual abuse is clearly exploitative and illegal. The SES has historically been used to assess adolescent and adult sexual assault, and we wanted to retain this focus. Prior research has found that most instances of sexual exploitation occurring at age 14 and after are perpetrated by a same-age peer and have characteristics more similar to adult sexual assault than child sexual abuse (Livingston et al., 2007; Testa & Livingston, 1999; see also Koss et al., 2007, for a discussion). Other measures of child sexual abuse are available (e.g., Finkelhor et al., 2011) and could be combined with the SES-V to assess lifetime rates of sexual exploitation.

Recommendations and Conclusions

In creating the Illegal Sexual Exploitation module of the SES-V, our revision process was empirically-informed, closely guided by theory and existing research findings. Anderson et al. (2024) and Peterson et al. (2024) also provided some preliminary evidence of validity. Nevertheless, the module requires further research. For example, researchers might investigate whether legal authorities (e.g., attorneys or judges) perceive that the Illegal Sexual Exploitation items on the SES-V succeed in the goal of corresponding to legal statutes (recognizing that it is probably not possible to match all legal statutes and recognizing that some disagreement among legal authorities is likely given the vagueness of the law). Researchers could randomize participants to conditions to specifically evaluate how, holding all other content consistent, use of the new non-consent language on the SES-V (“without permission”) affects rates of reporting as compared to the language of the 2007 version (“without consent”) or could conduct interviews to examine whether participants perceive these phrases as equivalent, and if not, how they distinguish between them (see e.g., Strang & Peterson, 2017). Cognitive interviewing could be used to ensure that participants interpret the new sexual acts and exploitative tactics in the ways that they were intended. For example, interviewing about the new item, “Someone gave no advance notice so I could not agree or object” could help to ensure that this item is truly measuring nonconsensual sex as intended, rather than sex in which the consent is non-verbal or implicit, as may often be the case even when both partners feel willing (Muehlenhard et al., 2016).

Finally, although Anderson et al. (2024) provided some preliminary evidence of construct validity, general psychometric research focused on establishing the module’s test-retest reliability; rates of false positives and false negatives; and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity is needed. To illustrate, participants could be interviewed after completing the SES-V, and false positives could be assessed by asking participants who endorsed illegal sexual exploitation to describe the experience(s) that led them to endorse the item(s); false negatives could be assessed by asking those who did not endorse illegal sexual exploitation to describe any experience(s) that they have had that are similar to the items in the measure (similar to Strang & Peterson, 2017). Convergent validity could be examined by evaluating correlations between the SES-V and measures of empathy toward rape victims, for example, as rape victim empathy has been consistently found to be correlated with sexual victimization (Anderson et al., 2021). Divergent validity could be examined by evaluating correlations between the SES-V and measures of consensual but unwanted sexual behavior, for example. Using longitudinal designs, researchers could examine whether endorsement of sexual exploitation—especially illegal sexual exploitation—on the SES-V predicts later mental health symptoms (Bentivegna & Patalay, 2022), as one example of a potential test of predictive validity. This psychometric research should include diverse samples that represent individuals across sexual, gender, and racial/ethnic identities. Ideally, psychometrics would be examined separately and compared across different subsamples of participants to establish that the measure functions equally well among the subsamples.

Despite the need for further research, the new SES-V captures a broader range of illegal sexual exploitation than prior versions of the measure, and we hope that this allows for more complete and inclusive measurement of sexual victimization. We also hope that this revision sparks new methodological research on the measurement of illegal sexual exploitation because valid and reliable measurement is essential to obtain accurate prevalence rates, conduct research on risk factors for and outcomes of sexual exploitation, and enable evaluation of sexual exploitation prevention interventions.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

During preparation of this article, Dr. Anderson’s time was partially funded by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA grant K01AA026643]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Notes

¹ Interestingly, in the U.S., some states do have laws mandating that colleges and universities adopt an “affirmative consent” standard when evaluating sexual misconduct on campuses, but often criminal statutes in those same states do not apply an affirmative consent standard (e.g., Hamilton, 2021). In other words, although passivity might count as non-consent for campus misconduct hearings in some states, it probably would not count as non-consent in criminal cases in most U.S. states.