How Hot Is He? A Psychophysiological and Psychosocial Examination of the Arousal Patterns of Sexually Functional and Dysfunctional Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite much theorizing about the interchangeability of desire and arousal, research has yet to identify whether men with desire vs. arousal disorders can be differentiated based on their psychophysiological patterns of arousal. Additionally, little research has examined the relationship between subjective (SA) and genital arousal (GA) in sexually dysfunctional men. AIMS: To compare patterns of SA and GA in a community sample of men meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), erectile dysfunction (ED), both HSDD and ED (ED/HSDD), and healthy controls. METHODS: Seventy-one men (19 controls, 13 HSDD, 19 ED, 20 ED/HSDD) completed self-report measures and watched two 15-minute film clips (neutral and erotic), while GA and SA were measured both continuously and discretely. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Groups were compared on genital temperature (as an indicator of GA), SA, and psychosocial variables (i.e., body image, emotion regulation, sexual attitudes, sexual inhibition/excitation, mood, and trauma). RESULTS: Genital temperature increased for all groups during the erotic condition, yet men with ED and ED/HSDD showed less GA than men without erectile difficulties. All groups increased in SA during the erotic condition, yet ED/HSDD men reported less SA than controls or ED men. SA and GA were highly correlated for controls, and less strongly correlated for clinical groups; men with ED showed low agreement between SA and GA. Groups also differed on body image, sexual inhibition/excitation, sexual attitudes and alexithymia. CONCLUSION: Low desire vs. arousal sufferers have unique patterns of response, with those with both difficulties showing greatest impairment. Results have important implications for the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".