A Learning Experience? Enjoyment at Sexual Debut and the Gender Gap in Sexual Desire among Emerging Adults
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
Gender differences in experience of first intercourse are among the largest in sexuality research, with women recalling less pleasure and satisfaction than men. This “enjoyment gap” has not been considered in explanations of gender differences in sexual desire. Yet, reinforcement and incentive learning feature prominently in recent models of women’s sexual desire, and nonhuman animal models demonstrate their impact at sexual debut. We examined whether women’s lower sexual desire is explained by their gender or by gendered experience of enjoyment at sexual debut. Emerging adults (N = 838) provided retrospective accounts of physical (orgasm) and affective (satisfaction) enjoyment at (hetero)sexual debut. We replicated gender differences across behavioral, general, and multidimensional measures of trait sexual desire; however, they were contingent on experience and measurement method. When its cognitive multidimensional properties were appreciated, women’s sexual desire varied with experience of orgasm at sexual debut and diverged from men’s only when orgasm did not occur. Such effects were not observed for satisfaction, nor for men. Nor did effects of a control event – masturbatory debut – extend beyond solitary sexual desire. Findings underscore the importance of orgasm equality, and suggest its absence at sexual debut may play an unacknowledged role in differentiating sexual desire.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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