The five-second answer
The obvious question is:
“If you leak someone else’s intimate video, your own naked body may be in it too. Isn’t that embarrassing?”
For many people, that alone would be enough reason not to do it.
But research on image-based sexual abuse, or IBSA, shows that non-consensual sharing is not driven only by revenge. Reported motives include social rewards, bragging, impressing friends, humor, control, retaliation, sexual gratification, and attention.
So the internal calculation can become:
cost of exposing myself < damage to the other person + reward I get
A person does not need to feel zero shame. Shame only needs to lose against another reward.
1. Being in the same video does not make the harm equal
It is tempting to imagine a “mutual destruction” rule:
Two people are naked. Therefore both are equally exposed. Therefore the person who shares the file hurts themselves just as much.
That is not how reputational harm works.
A 2024 scoping review of IBSA perpetration found recurring motives linked to social and individual rewards. People reported sharing intimate material because they thought it was funny, believed others wanted to see it, wanted to impress friends, or wanted to brag.
For some perpetrators, the file is therefore not processed as a privacy disaster.
It becomes a trophy.
Instead of “my body is exposed,” the thought may be closer to “this proves I had a sexual or romantic relationship with this person.”
That is ethically indefensible, but psychologically understandable.
2. Why expose yourself just to expose someone else?
Bragging and peer status
Some people treat sexual access as an achievement.
The review literature reports show-off and status-related motives, with some studies finding that men were more likely to endorse bragging or showing intimate material to other men.
If the other person is famous, popular, attractive, or high-status, the perceived “proof value” can increase.
Saying “I dated a celebrity” can be dismissed.
A private image can be treated by the sharer as proof.
There is no strong evidence that celebrity cases as a separate category are uniquely common, so this is an inference, not a direct research finding. But it fits the documented motives of bragging and social status.
Revenge
After a breakup, rejection, or perceived betrayal, the goal may become hurting the other person.
In that mental calculation, the sharer’s own embarrassment becomes the cost of the attack.
Power and control
Intimate material can be used to threaten or control someone: “Do what I want or I’ll publish it.”
In those cases, the real reward is not the image itself. It is the other person’s fear that it may be released.
Humor, attention, and peer approval
Some reported motives are disturbingly trivial: “It was funny,” “others would want to see it,” or “it wasn’t a big deal.”
The scale of the harm can be enormous while the perpetrator’s motive is absurdly small.
Sexual gratification and low embarrassment about self-exposure
Some people simply experience less shame about their own sexual exposure.
They may even experience it as attention, exhibition, pride, or sexual excitement.
If self-exposure is not coded as a serious loss, “but you are visible too” is not much of a deterrent.
3. Equal nudity does not mean equal social damage
A 2026 review of non-consensual intimate image sharing describes how stigma, sexual double standards, victim-blaming, shame, and reputational consequences can amplify harm, particularly for women.
Men can absolutely be victims too, and male victimization should not be minimized. But male exposure may sometimes be framed as a joke, a boast, or even social capital. Gender norms can also make male victims less willing to report harm because they are expected to act as if they do not care.
So:
same amount of nudity does not mean same social cost.
A perpetrator may believe that their own reputational loss is limited while the target’s loss will be much larger.
That makes the attack asymmetric even when both bodies are visible.
4. Does this mean the person is a “psychopath”?
Not necessarily.
Research reviewed in the IBSA literature has found positive associations with Dark Tetrad traits: psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism.
Traits such as low empathy, impulsivity, dominance, or enjoying humiliation may fit some cases.
But a statistical association does not diagnose an individual.
“Shared an intimate video without consent” does not equal “clinically a psychopath.”
Other motives include immaturity, peer approval, anger, retaliation, sexual gratification, attention-seeking, or simply underestimating the seriousness of the harm.
The better explanation is:
there are several ways a person’s internal brakes can fail.
5. “I slept with a celebrity” can become a status signal
This is where the logic becomes especially easy to see.
For someone obsessed with status, having had a relationship with a famous or highly desired person may become an achievement they want to prove.
Then their own body appearing in the file may feel less like a privacy cost and more like authentication.
To everyone else, the obvious response is:
There had to be a better way to prove that.
But inside a bragging-and-status mindset, the tradeoff can still feel worth it.
Again, research establishes bragging and social reward motives in general. Applying that mechanism specifically to celebrity partners is a plausible extension, not a proven celebrity-specific effect.
6. In Japan, “I’m in the video too” is not a legal shield
Japan’s law commonly referred to as the revenge-porn prevention law covers certain non-consensual publication and distribution of private sexual images.
According to Japan’s National Police Agency, publicly distributing qualifying private sexual images in a way that allows the depicted person to be identified can carry up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of up to 500,000 yen, depending on the legal elements of the case.
The crucial point is simple:
Consent to recording is not automatically consent to publication.
And the sharer appearing in the same file does not automatically give them the right to publish the other person.
7. Conclusion: it may be embarrassing, but something else is valued more
So, are people who leak intimate videos not embarrassed that their own body is visible?
Some probably are.
But embarrassment is only one item in the calculation.
They may value:
bragging, peer approval, revenge, control, attention, sexual gratification, or proof of status
more than they fear their own exposure.
The key mistake is assuming that two naked people in the same file suffer the same loss.
They often do not.
What looks like “mutual destruction” can be a highly asymmetric attack.
References (3)
- Henry N, Beard G. Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2024. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11545137/
- Mental Health on Victims of Non-consensual Intimate Image-sharing: A Scoping Review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2026. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-026-01312-x
- National Police Agency of Japan. Revenge porn prevention information. https://www.npa.go.jp/safetylife/seianki/shiseigazouboushi/index.html
