Sexual compulsivity among heterosexual college students

Journal of Sex Research, Nov, 2004 by Brian Dodge, Michael Reece, Sara L. Cole, Theo G.M. Sandfort

As with high risk samples, sexual compulsivity was a predictor of unprotected sexual activity in our study, although correlations between sexual compulsivity scores and several sexual behavior variables were relatively low. It is still not understood how sexual compulsivity functions in relation to sexual risk after the concept has been identified and measured. Zuckerman and Kuhlman (2000) presented a "'biosocial model" to better explain risk taking (including sexual), in which they hypothesized that risk taking is related to impulsive sensation seeking, aggression, and sociability as well as several biological traits associated with general risk taking and sensation-seeking personality. This work has implications for sexual compulsivity in that it could lead to a deeper understanding of its causes and potential treatments: however, such a theoretical model has not yet emerged for sexual compulsivity and related sexual risk-taking behavior.

Several of the substantive findings in our study are interesting and deserve deeper exploration. For example, the SCS was more highly correlated with solo sex activities than with partner sex or public sex activities. In other words, it appears that sexual compulsivity is more successful in predicting masturbatory behaviors than partner or public sex behaviors. The reason for this may be that masturbatory behaviors are, by nature, intrapersonal and usually not dependent on other individuals, while partner and public sex behaviors are. Although the solo sex activities we assessed may involve other individuals, such as those with an on-line partner or telephone partner, these require less personal interaction and commitment than sexual activities involving "real time" sexual partners.

The relationships of sexual compulsivity with gender and age in our sample also warrant further discussion. We found that mean scores for sexual compulsivity were significantly higher for male participants than female participants. Kalichman and Rompa (1995, 2001) found similar results in samples of primarily African American HIV-positive men and women and inner-city participants. In addition, younger participants in our sample had higher sexual compulsivity scores than older participants. These findings raise the question of whether the SCS, despite its construct validity and the face validity of the scale items, actually measures sexual compulsivity or if it taps into other constructs, such as sexual desire and sexual exploration, as well.

Differences in sexual compulsivity scores between men and women resemble broader gender differences found in sexuality research that suggest a stronger sexual desire in men. Women have reported less frequent masturbation, less accepting attitudes toward casual sexual encounters, and less consistency in orgasms than men in select samples (Hyde & DeLamater, 2000). These gender differences have been interpreted in the context of not only the wide array of biological differences between men and women but also the numerous and complex gender-related socio-cultural factors that shape human sexuality, including restrictive sex roles and double standards traditionally ascribed to female sexuality.