MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377968607 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad061.046

(049) Blue Balls: Fact or Fiction? Experiences of Genitopelvic Pain and Sexual Coercion Among People with Penises and Vulvas

2023· article· en· W4377968607 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Henkelman, Samantha L Levang, Robin Neish, Wendy Zukerman, B Terrel, Victoria Jackman, Susan L. Coyle, Jamin Brahmbhatt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgasmThematic analysisVaginaPsychologyHuman sexualitySexual arousalDescriptive statisticsVulvaSexual stimulationAmateurClinical psychologyMedicineArousalSocial psychologySexual dysfunctionPsychiatryQualitative researchSurgeryGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The term “blue balls”, formally known as epididymal hypertension, is often used in public discourse to describe scrotal pain following sexual arousal that did not result in orgasm. Even though many health-related and popular online sources feature information on its potential causes and treatments, only one interview-based study and one case report exist on this phenomenon in the scientific literature. Controversy exists around the factual nature of blue balls/vulva considering its use for sexual coercion. Objective This cross-sectional, mixed-methods, online study aimed to characterize and evaluate the experience and prevalence of discomfort/pain following sexual arousal without orgasm, and assess whether individuals have been pressured to continue sexual activity because of a partner’s fears of experiencing discomfort/pain without orgasm. Methods A total of 2621 individuals with a penis (N = 1483) or vagina (N = 1138) were recruited for an online survey on the experience of “blue balls/vulva”. Analyses included descriptive statistics, between-group chi-squared analyses, and thematic analysis on several open-ended questions. Results Results from a chi-square test of independence suggested significantly more individuals with a penis than a vagina reported believing blue balls are real, and significantly more individuals with a vagina than a penis reported being pressured into engaging sexually because of a partner’s fear of getting blue balls. Descriptive statistics indicated that for the individuals who disclosed experiencing blue balls/vulva, the experience of pain/discomfort is reportedly mild, with few participants rating the experience as severe. Thematic analysis results indicated that overall, participants felt people with vulvas are expected to engage in sexual acts to prevent their partner’s experience of blue balls despite endorsing that it shouldn’t be used as a sexual coercion tactic. Conclusions Despite public discourse that “blue balls” is extremely painful and common, this study suggests that severe pain exists in a minority of people, that solitary sexual and nonsexual activities can alleviate discomfort/pain, and that pain experiences are not a valid reason to pressure others into engaging sexually. Disclosure No

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207