Not All Orgasms Were Created Equal: Differences in Frequency and Satisfaction of Orgasm Experiences by Sexual Activity in Same-Sex Versus Mixed-Sex Relationships
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Which sexual activities result in the most frequent and most satisfying orgasms for men and women in same- and mixed-sex relationships? The current study utilized a convenience sample of 806 participants who completed an online survey concerning the types of sexual activities through which they experience orgasms. Participants indicated how frequently they reached orgasm, how satisfied they were from orgasms resulting from 14 sexual activities, and whether they desired a frequency change for each sexual activity. We present the overall levels of satisfaction, frequency, and desired frequency change for the whole sample and also compare responses across four groups of participants: men and women in same-sex relationships and men and women in mixed-sex relationships. While all participants reported engaging in a wide variety of activities that either could, or often did, lead to the experience of orgasm, there were differences in the levels of satisfaction derived from different types of orgasms for different types of participants, who also engaged in such activities with varying degrees of frequency. We discuss group differences within the context of sexual scripts for same- and mixed-sex couples and question the potential explanations for gender differences in the ability to experience orgasm during partnered sexual activity.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it