Group sex in the time of COVID: Intimacy, learning and community-building in sexual communities during a pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 has had a profound effect on every aspect of contemporary life, including sexuality. Physical distancing measures and limitations on large gatherings explicitly restrict in-person group sex events. We sought to understand how the pandemic and associated public health control measures have affected group sex practitioners and activities. We used a community-based participatory research approach. In fall 2019, we recruited a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of group sex key informants via community agencies, social media, and relevant websites (e.g., FetLife, Squirt). To be eligible, participants had to be at least 18 years old and have recently participated in a local group sex event (i.e. sex, broadly defined, with more than 3 people). Ethics approval was secured for the CAB as a longitudinal focus group study. Focus group meetings were audio recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. In December 2019, participants were asked about definitions of group sex. In May 2020, participants were asked about COVID-19 impacts. Key informants shared that due to COVID-19 restrictions, group sex events were cancelled and participants only had sex with others they were isolating with. Participants emphasized the challenges of isolation, the need to be patient, but also the opportunities associated with isolation. Participants reported attending online group sex events (e.g. Zoom orgies) as well as skill-building classes (e.g. rope bondage). Participants anticipated in-person events in the future, but felt that moving online opened up new opportunities for community-building. In conclusion, participants adhered to physical distancing protocols and quickly adapted to social isolation through innovative use of technology.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".