A cross-sectional survey of sex toy use, characteristics of sex toy use hygiene behaviours, and vulvovaginal health outcomes in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers' interest in the use of sex toys has increased in the past 10 years as products become more accepted in mainstream media, and incorporated into individuals' sexual scripts. Though researchers and health educators have emphasized the importance of sex toy use hygiene behaviours, few studies have addressed the extent to which individuals are sharing, cleaning and covering their sex toys. The current research examined 1) the prevalence, frequency, predictors, and types of sex toys use/used, 2) the prevalence/frequency of sex toy use hygiene behaviours (e.g., cleaning, sharing, covering) and 3) whether sex toy use hygiene behaviours were related to vulvovaginal health outcomes among a sample of Canadian participants. As part of a larger survey examining genital health and hygiene practices, 1435 participants across Canada completed an anonymous online survey. Prevalence of sex toy use was 52.3%. Sex toys users were more likely to report a bisexual, lesbian, queer or questioning identity and were more likely to report engaging in additional partnered sexual activities such as oral and anal sex. Participants used a wide variety of sex toys including vibrators, butt plugs, BDSM toys, and household items. Most participants indicated that they cleaned their sex toys regularly using soap and water and 21.7% reported sharing their sex toy(s) with a partner. Sex toy use is common among Canadian women and individuals report using a variety of sexual enhancement products. Implications for educators and medical practitioners working with sexually active clients are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".