The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inconsistent coital orgasm is a common complaint among women presenting with sexual function concerns. While sex therapy interventions incorporating explicit instructions and specific models of direct clitoral stimulation have been used to improve coital orgasm consistency among women, it is unclear whether simple exposure to sexually explicit models without specific instructional focus can stimulate such change. The purpose of this study was to determine if exposure to models of clitoral stimulation can induce imitative behaviour and enhance sexual functioning in a nonclinical sample of women. Female undergraduate students (N=64) were randomly assigned to view humourous media, or erotic media, or erotic media featuring explicit models of clitoral self-stimulation during partnered sexual behaviour. One week later, participants reported on their sexual behaviours, including frequency of clitoral self-stimulation (over the previous seven days), consistency of orgasm, and sexual satisfaction. The results indicated partial support for the hypothesized effect of exposure to clitoral stimulation models. Women who viewed explicit models of clitoral self-stimulation subsequently engaged in clitoral self-stimulation 3.51 times more often during subsequent partnered sexual behaviour than women exposed to humorous media, and engaged in clitoral self-stimulation in a greater proportion of their partnered sexual behaviours (Mdn=29%) than did women who viewed erotic media (Mdn=0%), or humorous media (Mdn=0%). However, no differences were found in reported consistency of orgasm or sexual satisfaction among the groups. These preliminary results provide evidence for a specific imitative effect following exposure to sexual media.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".