Assessment and treatment of compulsive sexual behavior disorder: a sexual medicine perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The addition of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) into the ICD-11 chapter on mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental disorders has greatly stimulated research and controversy around compulsive sexual behavior, or what has been termed "hypersexual disorder," "sexual addiction," "porn addiction," "sexual compulsivity," and "out-of-control sexual behavior." OBJECTIVES: To identify where concerns exist from the perspective of sexual medicine and what can be done to resolve them. METHODS: A scientific review committee convened by the International Society for Sexual Medicine reviewed pertinent literature and discussed clinical research and experience related to CSBD diagnoses and misdiagnoses, pathologizing nonheteronormative sexual behavior, basic research on potential underlying causes of CSBD, its relationship to paraphilic disorder, and its potential sexual health consequences. The panel used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on these issues. RESULTS: CSBD was differentiated from other sexual activity on the basis of the ICD-11 diagnostic criteria, and issues regarding sexual medicine and sexual health were identified. Concerns were raised about self-labeling processes, attitudes hostile to sexual pleasure, pathologizing of nonheteronormative sexual behavior and high sexual desire, mixing of normative attitudes with clinical distress, and the belief that masturbation and pornography use represent "unhealthy" sexual behavior. A guide to CSBD case formulation and care/treatment recommendations was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical sexologic and sexual medicine expertise for the diagnosis and treatment of CSBD in the psychiatric-psychotherapeutic context is imperative to differentiate and understand the determinants and impact of CSBD and related "out-of-control sexual behaviors" on mental and sexual well-being, to detect forensically relevant and nonrelevant forms, and to refine best practices in care and treatment. Evidence-based, sexual medicine-informed therapies should be offered to achieve a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".