Protiere Christel, Sow Abdourahmane, Estellon Vincent, Bureau Morgane, Leclercq Vincent, Grégoire Muriel, Bladou Fred, Spire Bruno, Michels David, Roux Perrine
Aix-Marseille Univ, Inserm, IRD, U1252 SESSTIM, Sciences Économiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitementde l'Information Médicale, ISSPAM, 19-21 Bd Jean Moulin, 13005, Marseille, France.
Institut Humanités, Sciences et Sociétés, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Arch Sex Behav. 2025 Mar;54(3):1129-1140. doi: 10.1007/s10508-024-03007-z. Epub 2024 Oct 15.
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.
“化学性爱”大多是从冒险的角度来探讨的，忽视了其愉悦和社交联系的层面。然而，来自该领域的反馈以及少数研究凸显了“化学性爱”行为的多样性以及与“化学性爱”的关系（对“化学性爱”的认知）。我们运用Q方法，确定了主要的对“化学性爱”的认知及其分歧与趋同之处，以助力制定针对性的预防和护理方案。Q方法能够探索复杂的主观结构，并提供某一现象的多面图景。在2019年至2020年期间，我们让126名居住在法国且有“化学性爱”行为的男同性恋者对37条陈述进行排序。通过个人因素分析来定义对“化学性爱”的认知，并采用整体过程进行解读。出现了五种对“化学性爱”的认知，凸显了进行“化学性爱”的各种动机、与物质使用及性取向的关系，以及所实施的管控策略：（1）从补偿到满足；（2）追求愉悦的管理者；（3）介于成瘾与管控之间；（4）从好奇到性取向的毁灭；（5）从补偿的希望到幻灭。受访者对两条陈述均表示认同：首先需要接受自己是吸毒者以便能够管控毒品使用，以及在“化学性爱”过程中进行减少伤害的可能性。我们的研究结果首次揭示了主要的对“化学性爱”的认知以及相关层面之间的错综复杂关系。从对“化学性爱”的认知中得出的基于分析的五种叙述可能会促进在关于“化学性爱”的访谈或支持小组中的讨论，并可作为一种标准化的调查工具。我们的研究结果提倡进行纵向研究，以确定与从一种对“化学性爱”的认知转变为另一种相关的因素。
