Condom ‘turn offs’ among adults: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploratory study compared the prevalence of multiple types of condom-associated 'turn offs' in men and women. Nearly 2000 people completed a web-based questionnaire. Data were analysed from 464 men and women who reported that condoms had turned them off the last time they were used. Gender differences were not observed for the majority (9) of 15 turn offs. The most common turn offs related to loss of pleasure. For example, more than three-quarters of the men and nearly 40% of the women reported decreased sexual sensation (P = 0.0001). Putting on condoms was reported by 43.2% of the men versus 30.2% of the women (P = 0.02). Smell was a relatively frequent turn off, with about one-third indicating this issue and no significant gender difference (P = 0.32). Turn offs pertaining to arousal and orgasm were also common. Findings suggest that numerous physical and psychological condom turn offs may be experienced by men and women while using male condoms. Although some turn offs differed as a function of gender, there was remarkable similarity between men and women.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".