Habituation of Sexual Responses in Men and Women: A Test of the Preparation Hypothesis of Women's Genital Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Laboratory studies have revealed two well-replicated sex differences in sexual arousal patterns: category specificity and sexual concordance. Men's genital responses are dependent on specific sexual cues and are concordant with subjective reports of arousal. Women's genital responses are much less dependent on specific sexual cues and are much less concordant with their subjective reports. The preparation hypothesis provides a functional explanation for these sex differences and posits that women's genital responses are not tied to sexual preferences but rather occur automatically in the presence of any sexual cue to protect the genital tissues from injuries incurred through sexual activity. This hypothesis leads to the expectation that women's genital responses may not habituate as quickly or as completely as men's. AIM: To determine whether there is a sex difference in the habituation of genital responses and to further test the preparation hypothesis of women's genital responses. METHODS: Twenty men and 20 women had their genital responses measured while they were exposed to nine consecutive presentations of the same erotic film clip (habituation), followed by two presentations of different erotic film clips (novelty), and followed by two presentations of the original erotic film clip (dishabituation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Genital responses were measured continuously using penile strain gauges (assessing penile circumference) and vaginal probes (assessing vaginal pulse amplitude). Participants reported subjective sexual arousal, perceived genital arousal, and attention after each film clip presentation. RESULTS: Men and women displayed very similar patterns of genital responses, consistent with habituation and novelty effects. Effects of habituation and novelty were eliminated once subjective reports of attention were covaried. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the prediction from the preparation hypothesis of women's genital responses, men's and women's responses showed similar patterns of habituation upon repeated exposure. Future research should attempt to maintain participants' attention in order to further test the preparation hypothesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".