Reread the article. Bringing the general points up is only logical, in addition to helpful. The article opens with a possible analogy with chemical dependency. Then it jumps into criteria that have to do with sex. At the end only, it links the sex addiction (let us use it as a working term until something better emerges) to cocaine. So the author starts by showing that one can conceptualize sex addiction by analogizing with chemical dependency, then drops this thought, and then returns to it at the end but writing as if this idea were just introduced. Removing such "jumps" from point to point and back would make the text read more fluidly.

Just one more example of circular logic:

"While there is no official diagnosis for sex addiction, clinicians and researchers have attempted to define the disorder using criteria based on chemical dependency literature."

This reads as if the disorder for sure exists, but we do not have an official name for it... a way yet to put it inside the nosology (classification taxonomy etc). But it exists. And yet, we are not even sure of that.

I would go way vaguer and talk about a cluster of problems, issues, symptoms, behaviors that make one organize one's world to revolve around sex in some form, just like a cocaine addict's life revolves around cocaine, to the detriment of everything else.

Does this sound reasonable, without too many labels yet getting at the core of the issue?