Men’s Feminist Identification and Reported Use of Prescription Erectile Dysfunction Medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyzed data from the 2018 Sex in Canada survey (n = 1,015 cisgender men) to examine the association between feminist identification and reported use of prescription ED medication (EDM) during men’s last sexual encounter. Feminist-identified men were substantially more likely to report EDM use than non-feminist men, even after controlling for alcohol use before sex, erection difficulties, sexual arousal, sexual health, mental health, and physical health. One explanation is that feminist men may use EDM to bolster their masculinity when it is otherwise threatened by their identification as feminist. Another is that non-feminist men may be less likely to use prescription EDM because they view accessing healthcare services as a threat to their masculinity. It is also possible that feminist men are more likely to use EDM because they wish to maintain an erection to better please their partner. Lastly, feminist men may be more honest about EDM use than non-feminist men, even though rates are similar. Regardless of the exact reason, therapists can use these results to tailor sexual health messages to clients based on feminist identification. Future work could employ qualitative methods to understand why feminist men report higher rates of EDM use than non-feminist men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".