Oral sex: Behaviours and feelings of Canadian young women and implications for sex education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Anecdotal reports indicate that, over the past decade, oral sex has become an increasingly common and casual activity among adolescent females. To investigate the validity of this claim the authors set out to study the oral sex practices of young women in Canada and to explore the attitudes and emotions that young women associate with oral sex. METHOD: An anonymous self-report questionnaire, which contained questions pertaining to both vaginal intercourse and oral sex, was completed by 181 women aged 18-25 years. RESULTS: Approximately three quarters of the women in this sample had engaged in oral sex, a prevalence rate that was almost identical to that for vaginal intercourse. The mean age at first experience was approximately 17 years for both coitus and oral sex, though 27% of the sexually active participants had their first oral sex experience before age 16 (compared to 16% for coitus). Most women had their most recent sexual experiences within committed relationships and reported positive emotions associated with those experiences. Negative emotions at most recent oral sex were more commonly reported by the younger women in the sample and by those who were not in love with their partner. DISCUSSION: These results indicate that oral sex is at least as common as vaginal intercourse and that it has the same emotional implications for young women. Therefore, this topic should be given the same consideration as coitus within the context of sex education. Young people must be informed about risks, protective factors, and emotional implications associated with engagement in oral sex.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".