Was it good for you too?: An analysis of gender differences in oral sex practices and pleasure ratings among heterosexual Canadian university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oral sex has become a standard component of the heterosexual sexual script, though little is known about the level of pleasure men and women experience from giving and receiving oral sex and the extent to which relationship context is associated with levels of pleasure. The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences in giving and receiving oral sex, and associations with pleasure experienced and partner type. Participants were 899 heterosexual university students who reported on their sexual activities in their most recent sexual encounter in an online survey. Over two-thirds of participants reported that their last sexual encounter included giving and/or receiving oral sex. More women (59%) than men (52%) reported giving oral sex to their partner. More men (63%) than women (44%) reported receiving oral sex. Most men (73%) and women (69%) reported that receiving oral sex was “very pleasurable.” Though most participants rated giving oral sex as at least “somewhat pleasurable,” men were significantly more likely than women to report that giving oral sex was very pleasurable (52% vs. 28%). Overall, ratings of pleasure for giving oral sex were higher for men, but no gender differences were found for overall pleasure ratings of receiving oral sex. Regardless of gender, higher pleasure ratings were reported when giving and receiving oral sex with more committed partners compared to more casual ones. Findings highlight the utility of discussing gendered norms for sexual behaviour with young people, and including pleasure-enhancing information in sexual health education programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".