Sex As a Coping Strategy and Its Relationship to Juvenile Sexual History and Intimacy in Sexual Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research examined the hypothesis that sexual activity functions as a coping strategy for sexual offenders. A 16-item scale, the Coping Using Sex Inventory (CUSI), was developed to assess the presence of and the degree to which sex was used to deal with problematic situations. Sexual offenders consistently reported using sexual activities, both consenting and nonconsenting, as a coping strategy to deal with stressful and problematic situations. In the first study, when compared to nonsexual violent offenders, sexual offenders showed evidence of sexual preoccupation during adolescence, and this preoccupation was related to the latter use of sex as a coping strategy. In the second study, intimacy deficits and loneliness were related to greater use of sexual activity as a coping mechanism. The third study examined the psychometric properties of the CUSI. A factor analysis revealed 3 factors in the CUSI corresponding to consenting sexual themes, rape themes, and child sexual abuse themes. Sexual offenders reported higher use of each type of sexual activity to cope with stressful and difficult situations as compared to nonsexual offenders. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed here.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".