Virginity beliefs in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals experiencing same- and different-sex “first” times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to explore first sex experiences in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (LGB) using the Virginity Beliefs Framework ( Carpenter, 2001 ; Humphreys, 2013 ; Eriksson & Humphreys, 2014 ). The specific focus was on LGB individuals who have had both a sexual experience with a member of a different sex and a member of the same sex. This phenomenon is what the current study is defining as second virginity loss. Participants consisted of 275 self-identified LGB individuals; the sample was approximately half women (57%) between the ages of 18 and 56. Further, six semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a clearer understanding of LGB individuals first sex experiences. Two primary research questions were proposed: (1) how do the virginity belief frames map onto the two “first” sexual experiences of LGB individuals? and (2) are there differences in the virginity belief frames between the two “first” times? Results found that LGB individuals hold stronger process beliefs than gift or stigma beliefs for both of their “first” times. The qualitative interviews suggested that the process of understanding virginity was enmeshed with a larger exploration, and eventual validation, of sexual identity. There was also a significant drop in the strength of some of the gift, process, and stigma beliefs from different-sex experience to same-sex experience for many in the gay and bisexual samples, but not in the lesbian sample. The current study is the first to explore the phenomenon of second virginity loss in LGB individuals and could be used as a foundation for future research on LGB first sexual experiences.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".