How Cannabis Alters Sexual Experience: A Survey of Men and Women
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Cannabis is reported to enhance sexual function; yet, previous studies have shown that physiological and subjective indices of sexual arousal and motivation were associated with decreased availability of circulating endocannabinoid concentrations. AIM: To explain this contradiction, we evaluated which aspects of sexual experience were enhanced or diminished by cannabis use. METHODS: We used an online questionnaire with a convenience sample of people who had experience with cannabis. We asked questions regarding various aspects of sexual experience and whether they are affected by cannabis. We also asked about sexual dysfunction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Aspects of participant sexual experience enhanced by cannabis. RESULTS: We analyzed results from 216 questionnaires completed by people with experience using cannabis with sex. Of these, 112 (52.3%) said they used cannabis to alter their sexual experience. Eighty-two participants (38.7%) said sex was better, 34 (16.0%) said it was better in some ways and worse in others, 52 (24.5%) said it was sometimes better, and only 10 (4.7%) said it was worse. Of 202 participants, 119 (58.9%) said cannabis increased their desire for sex, 149 of the 202 participants (73.8%) reported increased sexual satisfaction, 144 of 199 participants (74.3%) reported an increased sensitivity to touch, and 132 of 201 participants (65.7%) reported an increased intensity of orgasms. Out of 199 participants, 139 (69.8%) said they could relax more during sex, and 100 of 198 participants (50.5%) said they were better able to focus. Of the 28 participants who reported difficulty reaching orgasm, 14 said it was easier to reach orgasm while using cannabis, but only 10 said that sex was better. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The information in this study helps clarify which aspects of sexual function can be improved or interfered with by cannabis use. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: We asked about specific sexual effects of cannabis and were therefore able to understand the paradox of how cannabis can both improve and detract from sexual experience. Limitations of this study include bias that may have been introduced because the sample included only people who responded to the advertisements; it may not represent the general population of people who use cannabis. Moreover, over one-third of our sample said they use cannabis daily and so represent heavier than average users. CONCLUSION: Many participants in our study found that cannabis helped them relax, heightened their sensitivity to touch, and increased intensity of feelings, thus enhancing their sexual experience, while others found that cannabis interfered by making them sleepy and less focused or had no effect on their sexual experience. Wiebe E, Just A. How Cannabis Alters Sexual Experience: A Survey of Men and Women. J Sex Med 2019; 16:1758-1762.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».