The impact of sexual orientation on sexuality and sexual practices in North American medical students.

Benjamin N Breyer, James F Smith, Michael L Eisenberg, Kathryn A Ando, Tami S Rowen, Alan W Shindel
Author Information
  1. Benjamin N Breyer: University of California, Department of Urology, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There has been limited investigation of the sexuality and sexual dysfunction in non-heterosexual subjects by the sexual medicine community. Additional research in these populations is needed.
AIMS: To investigate and compare sexuality and sexual function in students of varying sexual orientations.
METHODS: An internet-based survey on sexuality was administered to medical students in North American between the months of February and July of 2008.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All subjects provided information on their ethnodemographic characteristics, sexual orientation, and sexual history. Subjects also completed a series of widely-utilized instruments for the assessment of human sexuality (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF], Female Sexual Function Index [FSFI], Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool [PEDT], Index of Sex Life [ISL]).
RESULTS: There were 2,276 completed responses to the question on sexual orientation. 13.2% of male respondents and 4.7% of female respondents reported a homosexual orientation; 2.5% of male and 5.7% of female respondents reported a bisexual orientation. Many heterosexual males and females reported same-sex sexual experiences (4% and 10%, respectively). Opposite-sex experiences were very common in the male and female homosexual population (37% and 44%, respectively). The prevalence of premature ejaculation (PEDT > 8) was similar among heterosexual and homosexual men (16% and 17%, P = 0.7, respectively). Erectile dysfunction (IIEF-EF < 26) was more common in homosexual men relative to heterosexual men (24% vs. 12%, P = 0.02). High risk for female sexual dysfunction (FSFI < 26.55) was more common in heterosexual and bisexual women compared with lesbians (51%, 45%, and 29%, respectively, P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION: In this survey of highly educated young professionals, numerous similarities and some important differences in sexuality and sexual function were noted based on sexual orientation. It is unclear whether the dissimilarities represent differing relative prevalence of sexual problems or discrepancies in patterns of sex behavior and interpretation of the survey questions.

References

  1. J Sex Med. 2010 Sep;7(9):3104-14 [PMID: 19968773]
  2. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1993 Mar;50(3):217-23 [PMID: 8439243]
  3. Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep;129(5):674-697 [PMID: 12956539]
  4. Eur Urol. 2007 Aug;52(2):565-73 [PMID: 17275165]
  5. JAMA. 1999 Feb 3;281(5):421-6 [PMID: 9952201]
  6. Am J Public Health. 2007 Jun;97(6):1067-75 [PMID: 17463384]
  7. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1995 Mar;18(1):71-84 [PMID: 7761309]
  8. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007 May;16(4):499-509 [PMID: 17521253]
  9. J Homosex. 2009;56(8):1030-45 [PMID: 19882425]
  10. Urology. 1997 Jun;49(6):822-30 [PMID: 9187685]
  11. J Sex Med. 2008 Jul;5(7):1660-8 [PMID: 18331257]
  12. Arch Intern Med. 1999 Dec 13-27;159(22):2730-6 [PMID: 10597764]
  13. J Sex Marital Ther. 2005 Jan-Feb;31(1):1-20 [PMID: 15841702]
  14. Women Health. 2008;48(3):339-62 [PMID: 19064465]
  15. J Sex Med. 2008 Dec;5(12):2766-79 [PMID: 18547383]
  16. N Engl J Med. 1998 May 14;338(20):1397-404 [PMID: 9580646]
  17. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):30-8 [PMID: 14963468]
  18. BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 18;8:70 [PMID: 18706118]
  19. J Sex Med. 2010 Feb;7(2 Pt 1):769-74 [PMID: 19912494]
  20. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Feb;84(2):352-64 [PMID: 12585809]
  21. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004 Oct;30(10):1255-66 [PMID: 15466599]
  22. Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1869-76 [PMID: 11684618]
  23. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002 Jun 1;30(2):187-90 [PMID: 12045681]
  24. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2002 May;27(4):489-503 [PMID: 11912001]
  25. J Biosoc Sci. 2005 Jul;37(4):499-518 [PMID: 16082859]
  26. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Jun;34(3):285-97 [PMID: 15971011]
  27. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Sep 19;145(6):416-25 [PMID: 16983129]
  28. Arch Sex Behav. 2001 Dec;30(6):575-89 [PMID: 11725456]
  29. Urology. 1999 Aug;54(2):346-51 [PMID: 10443736]
  30. Arch Sex Behav. 2009 Oct;38(5):765-78 [PMID: 17968645]
  31. J Sex Marital Ther. 2004 May-Jun;30(3):141-55 [PMID: 15205071]
  32. Int J Impot Res. 2007 Sep-Oct;19(5):521-5 [PMID: 17568761]
  33. Am J Public Health. 2009 Dec;99(12):2275-81 [PMID: 19833997]
  34. Arch Sex Behav. 2011 Feb;40(1):133-42 [PMID: 19588238]
  35. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000 Apr-Jun;26(2):191-208 [PMID: 10782451]
  36. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;49(12):1270-8 [PMID: 18564066]
  37. J Sex Med. 2008 Jul;5(7):1521-33; quiz 1534-5 [PMID: 18644085]
  38. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(2):155-63 [PMID: 14696706]
  39. J Urban Health. 2009 Jul;86 Suppl 1:48-62 [PMID: 19513854]

Grants

  1. K12 DK083021/NIDDK NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adult
Confidence Intervals
Cross-Sectional Studies
Data Collection
Female
Health Status Indicators
Humans
Internet
Logistic Models
Male
Multivariate Analysis
North America
Odds Ratio
Prevalence
Psychometrics
Quality of Life
Sexual Behavior
Sexuality
Students, Medical
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0sexualsexualityorientationfemalehomosexualheterosexualrespectivelydysfunctionstudentssurveyIndexmalerespondentsreportedcommonmenP=0subjectsfunctionmedicalNorthAmericancompletedErectileFunction27%bisexualexperiencesprevalence<26relativeINTRODUCTION:limitedinvestigationnon-heterosexualmedicinecommunityAdditionalresearchpopulationsneededAIMS:investigatecomparevaryingorientationsMETHODS:internet-basedadministeredmonthsFebruaryJuly2008MAINOUTCOMEMEASURES:providedinformationethnodemographiccharacteristicshistorySubjectsalsoserieswidely-utilizedinstrumentsassessmenthumanInternational[IIEF]FemaleSexual[FSFI]PrematureEjaculationDiagnosticTool[PEDT]SexLife[ISL]RESULTS:276responsesquestion132%45%5Manymalesfemalessame-sex4%10%Opposite-sexpopulation37%44%prematureejaculationPEDT>8similaramong16%17%7IIEF-EF24%vs12%02HighriskFSFI55womencomparedlesbians51%45%29%005CONCLUSION:highlyeducatedyoungprofessionalsnumeroussimilaritiesimportantdifferencesnotedbasedunclearwhetherdissimilaritiesrepresentdifferingproblemsdiscrepanciespatternssexbehaviorinterpretationquestionsimpactpractices

Similar Articles

Cited By