Diversity of Chemsex Experiences among Men Who Have Sex with Men: Results from the French ANRS PaacX Study Using Q-Methodology

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Christel Protiere, Abdourahmane Sow, Vincent Estellon, Morgane Bureau, Vincent Leclercq, Muriel Grégoire, Fred Bladou, Bruno Spire, David Michels, Perrine Roux
{"title":"Diversity of Chemsex Experiences among Men Who Have Sex with Men: Results from the French ANRS PaacX Study Using Q-Methodology","authors":"Christel Protiere, Abdourahmane Sow, Vincent Estellon, Morgane Bureau, Vincent Leclercq, Muriel Grégoire, Fred Bladou, Bruno Spire, David Michels, Perrine Roux","doi":"10.1007/s10508-024-03007-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Chemsex is mostly approached through the prism of risk-taking, neglecting the pleasure and social linking dimensions. However, feedback from the field and few studies highlights a diversity of chemsex practices and relationships to chemsex (RtC). Using Q-methodology, we identified the main RtC and their divergences and convergences, to help develop tailored prevention and care programs. Q-methodology enables the exploration of complex subjective structures and provides a multifaceted picture of a phenomenon. In 2019–2020, we asked 126 men who have sex with men living in France and practicing chemsex to rank order 37 statements. RtC were defined through by-person factor analysis and interpreted using a holistic process. Five RtC emerged, highlighting various motivations for practicing chemsex, relationships to substance use and to sexuality, and regulation strategies implemented: (1) From compensation to fulfillment; (2) The pleasure-seeking manager; (3) Between addiction and management; (4) From curiosity to the destruction of sexuality; and (5) From the hope of compensation to disillusion. Respondents all agreed on two statements: the need to first accept oneself as a drug user in order to be able to manage drug use, and the possibility of harm reduction during chemsex sessions. Our results are the first to elicit the main RtC and the intricacies between the dimensions at stake. The five analysis-based narratives derived from RtC might facilitate discussion during interviews or support groups on chemsex, and could serve as a standardized survey tool. Our findings advocate longitudinal studies to identify factors associated with shifting from one RtC to another.</p>","PeriodicalId":8327,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Sexual Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03007-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chemsex is mostly approached through the prism of risk-taking, neglecting the pleasure and social linking dimensions. However, feedback from the field and few studies highlights a diversity of chemsex practices and relationships to chemsex (RtC). Using Q-methodology, we identified the main RtC and their divergences and convergences, to help develop tailored prevention and care programs. Q-methodology enables the exploration of complex subjective structures and provides a multifaceted picture of a phenomenon. In 2019–2020, we asked 126 men who have sex with men living in France and practicing chemsex to rank order 37 statements. RtC were defined through by-person factor analysis and interpreted using a holistic process. Five RtC emerged, highlighting various motivations for practicing chemsex, relationships to substance use and to sexuality, and regulation strategies implemented: (1) From compensation to fulfillment; (2) The pleasure-seeking manager; (3) Between addiction and management; (4) From curiosity to the destruction of sexuality; and (5) From the hope of compensation to disillusion. Respondents all agreed on two statements: the need to first accept oneself as a drug user in order to be able to manage drug use, and the possibility of harm reduction during chemsex sessions. Our results are the first to elicit the main RtC and the intricacies between the dimensions at stake. The five analysis-based narratives derived from RtC might facilitate discussion during interviews or support groups on chemsex, and could serve as a standardized survey tool. Our findings advocate longitudinal studies to identify factors associated with shifting from one RtC to another.

Abstract Image

男男性行为者化学性行为经历的多样性:使用 Q 方法的法国 ANRS PaacX 研究结果
人们大多从冒险的角度来看待化学性行为,而忽视了快乐和社会联系的层面。然而,来自实地的反馈和为数不多的研究强调了化性实践和化性关系(RtC)的多样性。利用 Q 方法,我们确定了主要的 RtC 及其分歧和趋同,以帮助制定有针对性的预防和护理计划。Q-方法论能够探索复杂的主观结构,并提供现象的多面图景。2019-2020年,我们询问了126名居住在法国、从事化学性性行为的男性同性恋者,让他们对37项陈述进行排序。我们通过逐人因子分析对 RtC 进行了定义,并采用整体程序对其进行了解释。结果发现了五种 RtC,突出了进行药交的各种动机、与药物使用和性行为的关系,以及所实施的调节策略:(1)从补偿到满足;(2)寻求快感的管理者;(3)在成瘾和管理之间;(4)从好奇到破坏性行为;以及(5)从补偿的希望到幻灭。所有受访者都同意以下两点:首先需要接受自己是一名吸毒者,这样才能管理好毒品的使用;以及在药交过程中减少伤害的可能性。我们的研究结果首次揭示了主要的 RtC 以及相关层面之间错综复杂的关系。基于 RtC 得出的五种分析叙述可能有助于在关于药交的访谈或支持小组中进行讨论,并可作为标准化的调查工具。我们的研究结果主张开展纵向研究,以确定从一种 RtC 转向另一种 RtC 的相关因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
13.20%
发文量
299
期刊介绍: The official publication of the International Academy of Sex Research, the journal is dedicated to the dissemination of information in the field of sexual science, broadly defined. Contributions consist of empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative), theoretical reviews and essays, clinical case reports, letters to the editor, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信