Men’s engagement in and enjoyment of cunnilingus: The role of gendered attitudes, sexual scripts, and masculinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently little research investigating men’s lack of engagement in cunnilingus. This study explored reasons why some men do not engage in cunnilingus, as well as characteristics that distinguish those who engage from those who do not. A convenience sample of 935 straight and bisexual/pansexual male participants were asked to indicate whether they have ( n = 833, Mage = 37.14, SDage = 14.12) or have not ( n = 102, Mage = 21.63, SDage = 6.11) engaged in cunnilingus. Additionally, we interrogated participants’ sexual history, precarious manhood belief, sexist beliefs, sexual narcissism, homophobia, and attitudes toward women’s genitals. Our results indicated that engagement in cunnilingus is very common among men who have sex with women, with 89.09% of our sample having performed oral sex at least once and the overwhelming majority of engagers (94.47%) indicating enjoyment. However, we also identified that men who do not engage in cunnilingus demonstrated greater levels of homophobia, had more negative attitudes toward women’s genitals, and were less likely to be sexually narcissistic than men who did engage in cunnilingus. Endorsement of precarious manhood belief, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism did not influence engagement in cunnilingus. Results also indicated that the primary reason men do not engage in or enjoy cunnilingus—aside from lack of opportunity—was the perception that cunnilingus is “gross.” Further, men who engaged in oral sex but did not enjoy it demonstrated greater endorsement of both precarious manhood belief and hostile sexism, as well as higher levels of homophobia and more negative attitudes toward women’s genitals.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".