Pornography’s associations with open sexual communication and relationship closeness vary as a function of dyadic patterns of pornography use within heterosexual 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
Couples who use pornography together (shared pornography use) and couples in which both members use pornography alone (concordant solitary pornography use) may have more sexual interests, preferences, and values in common than couples in which one couple member uses pornography and the other does not (discordant pornography use). From this perspective, the associations between pornography use, comfort in sexual communication, and relationship closeness should vary depending on patterns of pornography use within relationships. Several related pre-registered hypotheses were tested using an online cross-sectional survey of heterosexual dyads ( N = 200) that were quota sampled to reflect the distribution of age and political affiliation of married American couples. Dyadic analysis indicated that participants who shared pornography use with their partner reported more open sexual communication and greater closeness than those that did not. Further, participants who were in relationships that were discordant in solitary pornography use reported more inhibited sexual communication and lower closeness than participants who were in relationships that were concordant in solitary pornography use. In fact, couples who were concordant in high-frequency solitary pornography use reported similar openness in sexual communication and closeness as couples in which neither partner used pornography alone. These findings have important implications for the field, because they reinforce the view that the links between pornography use and relationship health are largely a function of different patterns of pornography use within couples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it