203: Uncertainty, Autonomy, and the Regulation of Chemsex: A Cultural Psycholegal Perspective Uncertainty, Autonomy, and the Regulation of Chemsex: A Cultural Psycholegal Perspective

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Chemsex coined by David Stuart is not merely a clinical phenomenon—this intentional use of psychoactive substances to enhance or prolong sexual experience is quite often positioned in psycholegal discourse as a problem sexual behaviour in need of societal control, particularly through restrictive treatments and legal prohibitions and abstinence-based treatment protocols. This paper examines chemsex through a psycholegal cultural lens, drawing on Juan J. García Blesa’s analysis of legal culture, the author’s clinical work with marginalized communities across Europe and the United States, and contemporary literature. Even the most multicultural-aware and culturally sensitive clinicians practice under policy and legislative frameworks (professional guidelines and licensure board regulations) that frequently originate from, and reinforce, cultural patterns of uncertainty avoidance and enduring tensions between individualism and communalism. Using dimensions such as uncertainty avoidance and individualism–collectivism, this paper explores how legal and moral orientations toward risk, control, and responsibility shape clinical treatment. The historical emphasis on abstinence-based recovery rooted in uncertainty avoidance is contrasted with more recent harm reduction and controlled-use approaches (“flight control”), situating this shift within broader cultural movements away from authoritarian governance and toward individual autonomy. Recovery literature from experts like David Fawcett also reflect this transition in clinical orientation. Particularly attention is given to involuntary and coercive treatment mechanisms, including compulsory psychiatric admission and court-mandated detoxification. Although commonly justified through narratives of collective safety or public order, these interventions are frequently experienced by patients as disempowering, stigmatising, and culturally misaligned. Such practices risk undermining therapeutic alliance, sexual agency, and ethical psychosexual care. This paper concludes by calling for greater critical reflection on how therapists can maintain cultural humility and patient-centred practice in contexts where the law demands control, and how clinicians might navigate the productive discomfort of cultural ambiguity when therapeutic values and legal imperatives collide.