Pornography use and romantic relationships: A dyadic daily diary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pornography use is now considered a normative sexual activity, including for partnered individuals. Although there are documented positive and negative effects of pornography use on romantic relationships, studies to date suffer from key limitations, narrowing their clinical relevance. Most rely on vague recall measurement that may inadequately capture actual pornography use, and all are exclusively based on mixed-sex couples. This study used a 35-day dyadic daily diary design to examine the associations between an individual’s daily pornography use and their own and their partner’s relationship satisfaction, partnered sexual desire, and probability of partnered sexual activity in mixed-sex and same-sex couples ( N = 217 couples). For women, regardless of partner’s sex, using pornography was associated with their own and their partner’s higher sexual desire and with higher odds of partnered sexual activity. For men, regardless of partner’s sex, using pornography was associated with their partner’s lower sexual desire; for men coupled with women, with lower odds of partnered sexual activity, and for men coupled with men, with higher odds of partnered sexual activity. For all participants, pornography use was unrelated to relationship satisfaction. The current study demonstrated that an individual’s pornography use is associated with same-day couple’s sexual dynamics, with different associations according to users’ and their partners’ sex.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".