Clitoral stimulation during penile-vaginal intercourse: A phenomenological study exploring sexual experiences in support of female orgasm
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
Penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) is the most common partnered (hetero)sexual behaviour in North America. Many women participate in PVI but do not acquire the clitoral stimulation they may need to orgasm as desired resulting in a gender-based orgasm gap during partnered sex. This phenomenological study situates itself at the intersection of sexological studies, which validate the importance of the clitoris (e.g. Kinsey and colleagues; Hite), and feminist scholarship that explores the problem of a sexual script constructed in a patriarchy that largely devalues the clitoris (e.g. Koedt; Boston Women’s Health Collective) in interrogating and describing solutions to inequitable orgasm experiences during PVI. In this study, 15 cisgender women, who do not orgasm from PVI alone, shared in semi-structured interviews how they acquire orgasmic clitoral stimulation during PVI. Four partners, who were cisgender men, were also interviewed and their perspectives were included when they added greater detail to the primary participants’ experiences. Fourteen out of the 15 women learned to induce orgasm during masturbation before experiencing their first orgasm during PVI. Masturbatory experiences helped participants learn effective stimulation techniques. Women then communicated these preferences to partners or self-stimulated during PVI. Orgasmic stimulation was achieved by either stimulating the clitoris against the male body or by creating space around the clitoris (2–3”) where preferred stimulation could occur. No two women had the same preferred clitoral stimulation technique. Understanding that one’s preferred stimulation technique is likely different and nuanced from others may be key to effective partner communication.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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