Non‐erotic thoughts: Content and relation to sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the possible range of content of non-erotic thoughts experienced during typical sexual activities with a partner. Undergraduate men (n = 47) and women (n = 50) were administered a measure of non-erotic thought content, frequency, and anxiety, along with measures of sexual attitude, satisfaction, and functioning. Men were more likely to report performance-related thoughts, and women were more likely to report thoughts about body image. However, men and women were equally likely to report thoughts about the external consequences of the activity (e.g., pregnancy, being caught) and the emotional consequences of the activity (e.g., morality, implications of the activity for the relationship). Women reported that their thoughts occurred more frequently and caused more anxiety. Greater thought frequency and greater anxiety over thoughts were associated with poorer sexual functioning for both men and women. For women, greater frequency of and anxiety evoked by thoughts was associated with lower sexual satisfaction. These data provide modest support for cognitive-behavioral models of sexual dysfunction and indicate the importance of both examining a broad range of non-erotic thought content and taking gender into account when applying these models to understanding and treating sexual difficulties.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".