Thursday, March 5, 2020

Abstinence from Masturbation and Hypersexuality: Despite the lack of evidence for negative health effects of masturbation, abstinence is frequently recommended as a strategy to improve one’s sexual self-regulation


Abstinence from Masturbation and Hypersexuality. Felix Zimmer & Roland Imhoff. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Mar 4 2020. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01623-8

Abstract: Despite the lack of evidence for negative health effects of masturbation, abstinence from masturbation is frequently recommended as a strategy to improve one’s sexual self-regulation. We adopted a framework of perceived problems with pornography to collect first hints about whether abstinence from masturbation stems from a psychological and behavioral “addiction” or conflicting attitudes. In an online questionnaire survey recruited via a non-thematic Reddit thread (n = 1063), most participants reported that they had tried to be abstinent from masturbation. As visible from zero-order correlations and multiple linear regression, motivation for abstinence was mostly associated with attitudinal correlates, specifically the perception of masturbation as unhealthy. While there were associations with hypersexuality, no significant correlation with behavioral markers such as maximum number of orgasms was found. Higher abstinence motivation was related to a higher perceived impact of masturbation, conservatism, and religiosity and to lower trust in science. We argue that research on abstinence from masturbation can enrich the understanding of whether and how average frequencies of healthy behavior are pathologized.


Discussion

This explorative study aimed to evaluate the associations of motivation for abstinence from masturbation. On the level of zero-order correlations and multiple linear regression, support for both hypothesized pathways, physiological and psychological dysregulation, and conflicting attitudes, was found. Yet, evidence for a pathway of conflicting attitudes was richer in quantity and quality.
For the pathway of physiological and psychological dysregulation, which can be conceptualized as a “masturbation addiction,” only the subscales of the HBI were associated with abstinence motivation. The HBI subscale Consequence as well as Dyscontrol showed positive associations to abstinence motivation, yet only Dyscontrol showed variance explanation within the regression model. Since abstinence from masturbation is an endeavor of controlling sexual behavior, the connection to feelings of dyscontrol regarding sexual activity is unsurprising. For the HBI subscale Coping, there was no zero-order correlation, but a significant negative relationship with the regression criterion was found. This implies that higher ratings on items such as “I use sex to forget about the worries of daily life” have been accompanied by less motivation to abstain. A possible explanation is that a functional role of masturbation, e.g., as a coping mechanism, for relaxation, etc., is a motivational counterpart to efforts to abstain. Other variables assigned to this pathway, the mean masturbation frequency before reduction, maximum number of orgasms, and onsets of masturbation and pornography consumption, showed no significant zero-order correlation or variance explanation in the regression. Descriptively, the all-time maximum number of orgasms was even lower in men with high abstinence motivation and vice versa, r(845) = − 0.11, p = .001 (without Bonferroni correction). Although it cannot be taken as a proof of the null, it speaks toward a low relevance of behavioral variables in the phenomenon of abstinence motivation.
The other pathway explains abstinence motivation by conflicting attitudes, specifically higher perceived impact, lower trust in science, higher conservatism, religiosity, and belief in a negative health impact. In zero-order correlations, all of these associations except for one subscale of perceived impact could be confirmed in the hypothesized direction. In the regression model, only social impact and perception of masturbation as unhealthy achieved significant variance explanation while exhibiting the largest predictor weights. Interestingly, the associations with the two facets of the perceived impact, health and social, pointed in different directions. Contrary to expectation, perceived impact of masturbation on health-related variables (e.g., cancer or acne) showed no zero-order correlation and even tended toward a negative predictor weight in the regression (β = − .07, p = .066). These results suggest that seeing a possibility to improve social life, rather than to avoid illnesses, might promote abstinence motivation. Summarizing the evidence from both pathways, abstinence motivation was mostly associated with attitudinal correlates, specifically the perception of masturbation as unhealthy.
Due to ongoing debates about pornography-induced sexual dysfunctions, we considered them as potential correlates of abstinence motivation. Of the five candidates, only men suffering from decreased genital sensitivity showed a higher abstinence motivation. Rather than viewing masturbation as problematic, one suggested line of interpretation is a reduced incentive to masturbate.

Limitations and Future Research

The main limitation of this study is the exploratory nature and the loose attachment to a theoretical framework. Specifically, the usage of the pathway model on another level of analysis, namely motivation for abstinence instead of the originally applied problem awareness, and post hoc assignment of the variables to the two paths, shall be discussed. To seamlessly transfer the model, one needs to assume an obvious theoretical step from problem awareness to abstinence motivation. Yet, there are other plausible pathways leading to abstinence motivation. For example, it can also be part of an effort to change sexual outlet toward more penile–vaginal intercourse. The interpretation of the association with decreased genital sensitivity also applied the possibility of abstinence motivation without the view of masturbation behavior as problematic. Therefore, it remains debatable whether the pathway model is suitable for abstinence motivation. Secondly, the assignment of the studied variables to the pathways of dysregulation and conflicting attitudes is not unambiguous for all variables. Take the HBI item “I do things sexually that are against my values and beliefs” for example. In this study, it was assigned to the pathway of dysregulation for its function as a marker of hypersexuality. However, it fits in perfectly with the pathway of attitudinal correlates, since an arbitrary amount of sexual activity, determined solely by moral standards, can justify a high score for the item.
The majority of participants of this study presumably were visitors or subscribers of the subreddit “r/everymanshouldknow.” Although limiting analyses to this subsample were performed in an attempt to reduce sampling bias (see Methods section), it remains questionable whether conclusions can be extrapolated to an intended population of male adults. On a theoretical note, sampling bias might be introduced by correlates of the apparent affinity toward a manliness theme such as more conservative sexual attitudes and behavior. Empirically, the average HBI sum score of 41.91 (SD = 15.16) showed a significant deviation from a previous “healthy” sample (M = 34.2, SD = 14.5, n = 147, Reid et al., 2011, t(1187) = 5.80, p < .001) indicating a relatively increased prevalence of hypersexuality within this sample. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that associations with masturbation abstinence differ in the general population. Another important limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the study and the associated limitations regarding causal inferences. For example, since the HBI is a self-administered tool and open to subjective interpretation (e.g., “My sexual behavior controls my life”), the causal direction of an association between an HBI score and abstinence motivation remains unclear. According to the pathway of conflicting attitudes, pathologization of average frequencies of behavior might also lead to notions of excessive behavior and high HBI scores.
The scope for study design improvements is particularly evident in the variables covered. Asking about current abstinence from masturbation and the view of one’s own masturbation as problematic should be included in future research. This would also facilitate comparison to existing research on Internet pornography. Furthermore, abstinence motivation might not be a criterion of preference. Within this study, 36.3% of the participants reported no motivation on a scale from 0 to 100, which due to the need for transformation can be considered a high limitation of variance. Assuming a normal distribution of the underlying construct, an item with higher difficulty, e.g., Do you consider reducing your frequency of masturbation?” may resolve this issue. 64.2% of participants in this study indicated that they have tried to be abstinent from masturbation at least once. Although we could not find a comparative figure, we regard it as unexpectedly high and possibly subject to scrutiny. Regarding sexual dysfunction, our questionnaire design prevented us from differentiating the indication of no sexual dysfunctions and otherwise missing values, e.g., lacking willingness of specification.
Although these limitations represent notable reservations, we would like to emphasize that the focus of this study is to encourage further efforts to design and eventually test hypotheses. It has already been demonstrated that inclusion of masturbation can be fruitful for understanding correlates of pornography consumption. For example, solo masturbation might actually explain the negative association of pornography viewing and relationship quality (Perry, 2019). Understanding the constituents of both abstinence from pornography and abstinence from masturbation might eventually be a basis for reducing pathologization of average and healthy frequencies of sexual behavior.

No comments:

Post a Comment