Women on men’s sexual health and sexually transmitted infection testing: a gender relations analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual health and sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing is typically portrayed as a women's issue amid men's estrangement from healthcare services. While the underreporting of men's STIs has been linked to masculinities, little is known about how women interpret and respond to heterosexual men's sexual health practices. The findings drawn from this qualitative study of 34 young women reveal how femininities can be complicit in sustaining, as well as being critical of and disrupting masculine discourses that affirm sexual pleasure and resistance to health help-seeking as men's patriarchal privileges. Our analysis revealed three patterns: looking after the man's libido refers to women's emphasised femininity whereby the man's preference for unprotected sex and reticence to be tested for STIs was accommodated. Negotiating the stronger sex refers to ambivalent femininities, in which participants strategically resist, cooperate and comply with men's sexual health practices. Rejecting the patriarchal double standard that celebrates men as 'studs' and subordinates women as 'sluts' for embodying similar sexual practices reflects protest femininities. Overall, the findings reveal that conventional heterosexual gender relations, in which hegemonic masculinity is accommodated by women who align to emphasised femininity, continues to direct many participants' expectations around men's sexual health and STI testing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".